♪ lex tonight, the senate foreign relations committee looks at u.s. aid to egypt. then, the confirmation hearing for the homeland security deputy. on the debtsions ceiling. the senate foreign relations committee held a hearing on egypt where the military has andd -- has ousted mom morsi. experts and diplomats talk about u.s. aid to the military and the consequences of cutting off that assistance. this begins with former middle

east envoy dennis ross. are here to talk about serious and the civil war there. it is no question that both our morals and strategic interests are engaged there. is very different, the stakes are very high. i find myself in agreement with youryou are saying in statement. when we look at egypt, we know that egypt is perhaps the most important arab country. it is always one that affects the rest of the region. politically, culturally it has been a trendsetter. when we look at the events of the arab awakening, they might have begun in tunisia but it was the events of career square which captured the imagination of the world. whichcareetahrir square

captured the imagination of the world. it is an unsettling situation, to say the least. at a minimum, we have seen unelected leader removed, but i think when we look at the selected leader that was removed, we have to understand that the intervention by the military is an intervention that was very much backed by a very large segment of the egyptian population. a critical mass of egyptians feel that this leadership under president morsi and the muslim brotherhood was a leadership that was not addressing egypt's problems. it was more concerned with control than it was with governance. while one can dispute the actual numbers that were on the petitions and one can question how many will be on the street, there is no question that without a significant percentage of egyptians -- that a significant percentage of egyptians responded.

place was a popular uprising. the military used that uprising to remove president morsi, but the reality is that today there is a good day of support for what the military has done. there are those within egypt, within the rest of the region which would view what has taken place as a course correction and that helps to explain why you look at the saudi's and the kuwaitis having provided assistance and beginning to act on that. there is one narrative that describes this very much as a course correction, a popular uprising. there's also a different narrative which comes from the the muslim brotherhood and the backers of president morsi who see a legitimately elected government replaced in an illegitimate way. demand the reinstatement

of president morsi. they make it clear that they will not allow things to remain as they are and they will continue to try to disrupt life within egypt unless he is reinstated. we are bound to see this polarization continue for some time. it will confront us. there will be difficult dilemmas. i think that we can look at the interim government which has many figures on it who are credible. we look at malawi and a number of others. they are certainly very credible figures, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the arbiter today is the military. ,he first deputy prime minister

you look at the speech he made yesterday in terms of calling on egyptians to come out and support their effort against terrorism which another way of talking about their efforts against the muslim brotherhood. -- h will be we are in for what will be a long. of instability. the real question for us becomes what do we do now and it is not as simple an answer. there are some who say that we should cut off assistance. i am not one of those. it is not because i don't understand the rationale behind doing that or the arguments that are made, the notion that it was a coup, that we have laws, that we have its bulls. i take all of those very seriously. i take seriously the reality that the military's actions were supported by the significant percentage of the egyptian population.

i take seriously the need for us to maintain influence in the current situation. to cut off our assistance at this point, the effect of that would be that we would lose the link we have with the military, but we'd also find a backlash among the egyptian public. the egyptian public would look at this as an american effort to theate to them against popular will. they would not take seriously our calls or statements that this is simply our law and these are our principles. we would also find we would not have much influence in the rest of the region. much is influenced by what is going on in syria. we would also see the saudi's theothers and will take place and assistance. i am concerned that the net we don'tuld be that

have influence at a time when we should be able to affect what will happen. i would not overstate the degree of our leverage but i think it is critical for us to be prepared to use the leverage that we have. a military clearly wants us to maintain the relationship for practical reasons. they also want it for symbolic reasons. if we cut off the assistance, it reinforces the narrative that them muslim brotherhood has put out there and it will make it difficult for the interim government and the military to get assistance. the key for me is to use our leverage, not to be reluctant to use our leverage, and to use it for a variety of purposes. we should be using it to ensure that the military really does go , to ensure barracks that the interim government is empowered to make real decisions.

along those lines, they should be working with the imf. there should be inclusiveness, there should be a transparent political process, i think there should be an international monitors who would be invited in to observe the election, to demonstrate that these will be free and fair. even if it means that the timing should be, should reflect the need for preparation. theell, there should be point you made about pardoning ngo's that were arrested for violating egyptian laws. one of the most important things we could do and the signal that we would send about egypt's posture with regards to building a civil society which is the key to having a level playing field.

we should use our leverage for those purposes and for allowing the muslim brotherhood to be included within an election. if they choose not to take part, that would be their decision. that withoutne is having delusions about how much leverage that we have, recognizing the limits, we should not take ourselves out of the game right now. we should not simply make a statement for the sake of making a statement. we should try to shape the direction that each of takes. we have a huge stake in how egypt evolves. ultimately, we should exercise that leverage and understand the following. we find that we are not listened to, we can always cut off the assistance later. i don't object to the use of assistance or the idea that we

should be prepared to cut it is notwe find that there responsiveness to the point and the principles that we are pushing. do it at this point, unfortunately we would no longer have an effect on what happens in egypt. i don't think we should cut ourselves off. thank you. ,> thank you, chairman menendez ranking member corker, members of the committee. the honor of testified about the crisis in egypt. as we look at the political turmoil and try to sort out u.s. policy options, i would like to raise four points. is that the july 3 removal of the muslim brotherhood president morsi by military to following enormous demonstrations should not the understood primarily as a triumph of secularism over islamism.

along with secularists and islamists in egypt, there is another major player which is the egyptian state itself. this was left largely intact after the removal of former president mubarak. the military, which is the most powerful player within the state worked with the islamists and against the secularists. now, the military as well as other state institutions has been on the defensive. this new alignment may not be any more stable or lasting. it is also important to say the current alliance with the secular opposition is anti- brotherhood.

it is not anti-islamist. the party supported the removal of morsi and has exerted its influence in the new transition by vetoing the cabinet choices. my second point is that we should really reserve judgment. on the patht egypt towards democracy or not. on the positive side of the ledger, the military is not exerting control directly but has put civilians out front. they put in place a cabinet. addition to that, i would say another positive sign is that the new transition roadmap puts the rewriting of the constitution before the holding

of new parliamentary and presidential elections and this a flaw in the first transition. the fact that they held this before the first time. they are dominating the process and is quitting others. on the negative side of the ledger, the way in which the democratic process was set aside on july 3 is troubling. he was a failure as a president and he behaved as though winning 52% gave him a mandate to rule as a pharaoh. the broad public opposition to his leadership was real. but it would have been much more powerful and salutary for egypt 's young democracy if he had been defeated in the early election or a referendum. there were some efforts made to persuade him to accept this, but they were very very brief. then, very quickly, the military moved to remove him in this way.

in a way, which sets a dangerous precedent. in addition to this, the new transition going on in egypt is in danger of repeating the single most important mistake of the first transition which was the failure to build a broad consensus and a tendency to exclude critical players. the secularists were saluted before, the brotherhood is excluded now. while they are speaking the language of enclosing, reconciliation, -- inclusion, reconciliation, there actions are saying the option. some of the senior leaders are detained without charge. there are rumors surfacing daily that they might be charged a very serious offenses such as treason or terrorism. of other signs that the intention is to exclude the brotherhood, perhaps out law

it again. is a real contradiction here between the talk about thatsion and the actions the government is taking. my third point is despite the military's argument that it took this action to remove morsi in order to spare the country a civil war, egypt seems to be of greater a time instability and perhaps a cycle of instability. there has already been a troubling spike in violence. and than 160 people killed 1400 injured in the past couple of weeks. daily clashes between pro-and anti-morsi groups. egypt is a much more heavily armed country than it was a couple of years ago. theike in attacks against military and police officers in the sinai. in the situation could see a return to the type of

insurgency and domestic terrorism it experienced in the 1990s when jihad these targeted government officials come christians, taurus, and liberals. if there is this kind of ongoing violence, it will not be possible to attract forests and investment back to egypt. there is money coming into the central bank from gulf donors and so forth. the call yesterday by the deputy prime minister, the defense minister for massive demonstrations tomorrow. in order to provide him, he said a mandate to crack down on terrorism. in theo escalate violence further. in light of all of these many dangers, the united states should proceed with caution and be guided by some basic

principles. egypt can only be a reliable security partner for the u.s. and a reliable peace partner for israel if it is reasonably stable. it will only become stable once it develops a governing system that answers strong and persistent popular demand for responsiveness from accountability for my fairness, and respect for citizens rights. we will have to look at the signs in the coming weeks about whether there will be inclusive and this or whether this campaign of excluding the .rotherhood will escalate will there be things like media freedom? civil society freedom? it is very important, the case against 43 workers, including 16 americans who have been convicted and sentenced to prison for ngo working pre-is -- in egypt.

take the time to pause. military deliveries and assistance in accordance with our law and review our policy towards egypt and our assistance to egypt including special privileges that egypt receives such as cash flow financing for foreign military financing. the u.s. should carry out its own internal review as well as a dialogue with egyptians inside and outside the egyptian government with the stated intention of resuming assistance as soon as the country is clearly back on a democratic path. in the meantime, we should do a review of the kind of military and economic assistance we offer egypt, which should not be kept on autopilot. rather, it should be updated in order to provide the kind of assistance when it is rescinded that is truly suitable to promoting a stable, prosperous, democratic egypt that plays a

vital and responsible role in the middle east. the u.s. understandably is wary of damaging its long-standing relationship with the egyptian government but it should avoid pursuing a policy that appears to be cynical and unprincipled. we should not make the mistake of concluding that the u.s. no longer has any influence in egypt. in fact, the fact that egyptians pay such close attention to what our officials say and have been very critical of our havey means that we still quite a lot of influence to exert. thank you. >> thank you, ambassador. thank you very much for the invitation to be here today and to you, senator menendez, thank you for your service on behalf of all of us and for our nation. having spent years living in egypt while serving our country

in foreign service, i cannot tell you how excited i have been to see a people long under the yoke of authoritarianism and dictatorship striving to define who it is they are and what it is they want to be come a how they want to shape their society. this has been largely a revolution to define egypt's identity and to establish a constitutional basis, a legal basis, for egypt could to pursue its own form of democracy. -- for egypt to pursue its own form of democracy. we are looking for a second chance for this revolution. this revolution is likely to continue to go through phases as the egyptians wrestle with these pressing large issues on their agenda. i would offer three comments in addition to the written testimony that i submitted for the record. first of all, we need to understand that this is an ongoing dynamic process. we are in round three or four

of what might be termed a heavyweight bout. there are forces in egypt that will continue to contest for political power. the egyptian public is as we know family divided, almost evenly divided among these various forces, including those who look to the military and security services for stability and law and order him including those who would like to see egypt to find by an islamist agenda. for those who were not that unhappy with the previous regime and since we want to return to some form of stability while enjoying some liberty and freedom. what we need to do is be patient. the revolution is only in his third year. they don'tons go, normally take a long time to unfold. they normally take a long time to unfold. as we take a look at the last

few weeks in egypt, we should instruct by the way in which the form of popular will was expressed both in the petition that added many millions of signatures as well as a demonstrations on june 30 and afterwards that persuaded the military to oust the former president. i know we are debating the question of whether this fits the definition of a coup according to our law and we should be debating that is the lawyers look at legal issues. we need to be mindful that millions of egyptians took to the streets from all classes, all sectors of society, not just cairo mama but upper egypt as well, alexandra, and the delta to say they did not like what resident mohamed morsi was doing to the country. and basically a certain powers and accrued powers only to himself.

having turned the other cheek and eye when it came to the massacres of coptic christians and others. the egyptian people basically said that we were ready to go to the streets to push hosting the bark out of office and we were ready to go to the streets mohamed morsi out of office. mubarak out of office and we were ready to go to the streets to push morsi out of office. we need to understand that the egypt-u.s. relationship that we have enjoyed now for more than three decades is changing. it is changing rather rapidly. the degree to which our assistance of the late 1970's, 80's, and 90's contributed to major changes in egypt. we helped to transform the egyptian military from a military alliance on the soviet doctrine, training, and weapons, to a military that is basically

interoperable with hours. that military provides significant should egypt assistance to whatever we do in the middle east and beyond the middle east. we have created a partnership with egyptian agencies, intelligence, counterterrorism agencies, that has been of direct benefit to the u.s. in our own efforts to counter terrorism against us and against our interests. we have helped to change the egyptian economy from a statist economy that pose new mubarak inherited to an economy which is largely dominated by the private sector. there are still changes that need to be affected to make this its benefitsding fairly to all people. the investment we have made has paid off and it is investment that we need to consider as we think about what we want to do in the future. our leverage with respect to egypt today is reduced and we need to understand that. the degree to which we do can

help us see egypt through what some are calling a second chance in its own revolution. a second chance also for us to redefine this important strategic relationship. in that respect, i think it would be shortsighted to cut aid to the egyptian military at this time. in fact, as i say in my testimony, we should have considered doing this years ago. egypt possible needs have largely been economic -- have largely been economic. to cut that eight off now would lose us the one partner that has proven to be stable and reliable in pursuit of our own objectives.ecutive we should see egypt through this crisis. we should provide advice quietly. we tend to say too much publicly

and we tend to react too much to daily eventevents. advice may be the order of the day. secondly, i think our own actions in this respect need to be tempered as well. understanding that the egyptian people, a proud people, are going to defy their own future. we can help them do it but we cannot make demands of them and expect them to follow our demands simply because we are providing assistance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for your testimony. it is very insightful. as both diplomats and academics, we need more than five minutes to do, but it was all very worthwhile. -- i amtart off concerned, and i would like to hear your views. i think that egyptian society believes that the u.s. sided

with the brotherhood in a way that was against their will. i sense that from conversations, from civil society, from reading. if we were to cut off the aid in thatld that not civil society, reinforce the view? that that is in fact the position of the u.s.. what would you say to that? >> i think that that would be the effect. whether the perception was correct or not is immaterial. it would be seen as being a statement that we were siding against brotherhood anything. i am not saying it is wide majority but i think it is the majority of the public.

i think it would produce a backlash. it would not yield us any benefits. that is one of the reasons i don't favor it. >> does anyone else want to comment? >> senator menendez, you're quite correct that a lot of egyptians say the u.s. sided with the brotherhood and before that they thought that we sided with the supreme council of the armed forces. ,gyptians, of all kinds whether they are secular or islamists, take a different view because they have looked at it as having no principle and being self-serving. we stuck close to mubarak when he was in power, and then morsi he was in power. been any not principles motivating our policy. that is one issue. the other issue is how would egyptians react to a suspension of our aid.

what ambassador rossa said is a danger, but this will depend on military will play this. they can drum up anti-u.s. sentiment if they like to. or, they could choose to say, the u.s. is suspending the assistance temporarily. that is their law, but we will see through a democratic transition. and so, it is not a problem. the assistance will be resumed because we fully intend to come through on the transition to democracy. >> first of all, to underscore the factunne said, is that egyptian public perceives american policy only in line with its own views. when the supreme council of the armed forces was in power, we were seen to be holding them together. when the muslim brotherhood came to power, we were seen as

supporting them. now, we are supporting this interim government. it is trying to play to the sentiment of a public that is trying to sort out its own is going to be quite difficult. one of the problems in terms of this cut off question is, as you suggested, the implications. it is not just an implication defined by how the public would absorb this, or, even as dr. dunn suggested, how the military might react, but whether or not it serves our interests. they are trying to calm the situation in the peninsula, which is extraordinarily dangerous, and which jihadist's only from gaza but elsewhere, have fought to use that peninsula as a launching pad for attacks against ejections and israel. they are also closing tunnels used for smuggling between sinai and gaza for the first time in decades.

those tunnels are now in debt in jeopardy. the military continues to provide the support we have a needed to our personnel and our equipments where they have to be. as long as we have deployments use of egypt, we will require support and assistance from the military to do so. in the short term, it may be that the military could live with a temporary cut off. we would be cutting off our own noses to spite our face. it would not serve american interests to do that. >> it seems to me the question is, some leverage versus no leverage, at the end of the day. personally, i believe using the an inappropriate use -- is an appropriate use. i also think about cutting off aid totally at this time, as

some have suggested. a time in which egypt's economy is in a downward spiral. the potential effect of that, there may be others we will try to replace. it would mean we would have no influence. they would replace, to some degree, the resistance. it would still be a significant blow to the economy. is that an additional concern? secondly, some of the language in the appropriation bills that are beginning to move our citing three conditions for the disbursement of u.s. military assistance to egypt. one is a political process, to is credible democratic electives and governments that protect the rights of religious minorities and women. do you think those are the appropriate conditions and precisely what steps should the military and the interim government take to satisfactory

check those? it has the do think potential on the economy, not just in terms of the objective realities, but psychologically, it has some potential impact. about therry less economy and more about our ability to affect the egyptian military exercise. i am worried about what the general said yesterday, that if we have little influence in the situation and they turn more to the gulf, understand one thing. for the wrong reasons, they want a very tough suppression of the muslim brotherhood. they see it as a mortal threat to them. we will put the military close in the arms, any prospect of restraint goes out the window. if part of our aim is to try to enhance the prospect of egypt

evolving over time in a much more favorable direction, if we take ourselves out of this equation right now, the prospect of restraint this appears. i agree with something dan said earlier. we are more likely to have an effect if we try to do it quietly. in the eyesappears of egyptians, it seems we are telling him what to do, the more -- trigger a national backlash. it does not mean we take away the potential to say things quietly or publicly. they should understand what we say in private is not going to remain in private. they should understand they do lose the connection to us and they want it. that theyt in a way cs to heavy-handed, it will be used against us. there is a long history here of the united states saying certain things in public that trigger an impulse.

i go back to the 1960's. he said we could go drink all the water from the mediterranean to the red sea. one of you want? >> yes. if i could comment on the economic crisis egypt if -- is facing, you are exactly right. our focus on military assistance has to do with the legislation and the definition of what happened. egypt has been in economic theis for two years since revolution began, which is quite ironic, because if you look at the numbers before the revolution, egypt was on a significant upward return with respect to its manufacturing sector and its tourism sector and exchange earnings. they are now at a point where the gap in financing is a pro se -- approaching $3 million a

month. in a situation where foreign exchange has been depleting rapidly, this represents a very significant crisis. as i suggested my original testimony, there may be a neat if egypt can reach an agreement with the international monetary fund, to think about emergency assistance for egypt in order to get egypt over the economic -- hump. the conditionality that is written into legislation, as one who lived in egypt for seven years, and worked with egyptians for a very long time, when i -- when they hear about conditionality, even if the conditions support and complement what they want to do, they're back gets up and they become very challenged by it. i hope we can talk about these as goals we and the egyptians

share, goals for an inclusive political process in which the rights of women and minorities are protected. these become the equivalent of dictates from the united states, i think we will see cliff back from the egyptians. own kind present its of problem for us. >> thank you. >> may i comment on this question? >> you know, i would like to move to other members. but i appreciate, maybe at the end, if other members have had their opportunity. let me, before i turn to the recognize and welcome to the committee the senator of massachusetts. he has a long history in the house of representatives, where i had the privilege of serving him. he has cared about international issues for some time and has been a leader in climate change and nuclear issues. we welcome them to the committee

and look forward to his service with us. senator. >> thank you. welcome, senator. dr. done, since we have this new spirit in the air here, if you want to take 30 seconds of to answer, go ahead. >> thank you. senator menendez said there is a question of some leverage versus no leverage. the united states has kept the military assistance going and has never used it as leverage. i think we are reaching the point to answer, go ahead. >> thank you. where, really, there is not much credibility here, of having any leverage with that assistance. ambassador ross said he would be in favor of using it at a future point if there were no responsiveness. my understanding is the administration reached out assertively to argue against a military to. there was no responsiveness. we are already at that point. >> thank you. mr. chairman, again, thank you

for having this hearing. for what it is worth, i appreciate the testimony. -- agents our nation in egypt right now should be an instrument of confidence. we make these issues about us and what we will do. unfortunately, it is one of the great diseases we have here in washington. really, this is about them and it is about an orderly transition and hopefully moving through the democratic process. i appreciate the comments relative to that and think that should be our role as we move forward. i agree much of our advice should be happening privately divisivenessch occurring here. i very much appreciate the comments regarding that. let me ask you this question. a transition plan put in place by the military, do we view that

timeframe as something realistic? >> i made a reference to the in.imony of monitors coming the international community, in terms of observing corrections, were to say more time were to prepare, i would favor that. i do agree with what michelle said. preparing the constitution in advance of elections is the right thing. it was important to pull out a date for elections. i would like it to be guided by the right kind of preparation, above anything else. >> do you think it is i am astic echo >>

little worried it was not necessarily realistic. the sequence is more appropriate this time than last time. i would still like the ground to be prepared and i would like to create more potential for inclusion, which will be difficult to produce. >> i agree. i think the sequel -- sequencing theood i am a but we have constitution rewritten by a small committee and look that five people appointed by the president. this is all supposed to happen in a couple of months. it is probably unrealistic. if egypt must have an opportunity where there is a broader buy-in than last time, it will probably take take longer and involved a lot more people. --you made the con meant the comments of the muslim brotherhood was not included. we talked with many people in egypt that said they tried to include them in this process. which is it? >> as i said, there are conflicting signals.

muslimare saying the brotherhood is included and invited to dialogue. then they forgot their entire leadership in prison and so forth. morsi also kept inviting the opposition to dialogue during his presidency. it was not a real and sincere offer and they had no intention of acting on that. unfortunately, this is something that is happening again and again in egypt. >> are they included or are they not and what about the transition time? >> on the transition time, we cannot have it both ways. on the one hand, we are pushing very hard for the military to truly go back to the barracks, which we all favor, and i think to dolitary would prefer that, as well. we cannot complain about a short transition. we will have to abide by the egyptian will in this case.

it is fast, perhaps too fast, a process that they are expecting. the whole thing is supposed to happen in four or five months as the committees go through their work. if we want the military to truly go back to the barracks, we may have to buy into a process moving a little bit advise.han we would with respect to the muslim brotherhood, the system is not going to stabilize, unless some kind of dialogue is undertaken successfully. you think there has been an appropriate reach out to try to reach them in what has happened and have they responded or not? >> there has been effort so far to reach out. the pushback has been there. one of the preconditions on the muslim brotherhood side is the release of former president morsi. that may not happen soon. isould not doubt there dialogue underway every day behind the scenes, even as they are confronting each other in the streets. the question is whether or not

they will find a formula that would allow the muslim brotherhood to climb down from the tree and also allow the military to climb down. that theespect, we saw european union, with its diplomats, had come quite close to persuading the morsi government to undertake reforms. it may be this also diplomatic activities going on time the scenes. >> before stepping back to the bigger picture, if i have time, we read this morning about what is happening at the border crossing. in gaza not long ago. if there is actually border control is a joke. anything you wanted was coming through the tunnels. it was very sophisticated. all the sudden, the military has moved to close got off, a huge change in activity there. do we have any idea what is driving that abrupt, good change?

driving that? >> it is being driven by a couple factors, revolving around the perception of what hamas is doing. there is an area built up in egypt that hamas has been very active with egypt itself. there is a perception also that the movement through the tunnels is a two-way movement headed therefore therefore threatened egypt and you have anddist in the side high they are trying to affect the two-way traffic. >> also, there is a back story emerging. a piece i saw this morning had suggested the military, some months ago, asked morsi for approval to undertake a major security operation in sinai. morsi's response, according to the article, was that he the mie months ago, asked morsi for approval to undertake a major security operation in sinai. morsi's response, according to the article, was that he would not authorize actions by muslims against muslims. the military has been stymied in its effort to restore security

in sinai. we are seeing the first effort by the military to do what it wanted to do over the past year. >> thank you for your testimony and for being here. i will wait until the next round. for thisyou so much, opportunity to listen to people who are experts on this. we need to hear you. for this opportunity to listen to peoples nuanced. cutting through that nuance is sometimes difficult, if you are not familiar with it. , on theould like to say aid to egypther gives us leverage, i am giving an opinion, which you do not i think all of our foreign aid, being done for the right reasons, it is still leverage. we would hope that people would appreciate the fact we care they mightt them

listen to us from our stand for about the best way to develop and the best way to reach for for democracy. i would say i disagree with you. i think all of our foreign aid should give us leverage in the best of ways. i wonder if any of you would disagree with this, that he was a military dictator. does anybody disagree with that at the panel? you all agree he was a military -- dictator. i really think those of us, all of us, who were stunned by the popular uprising, and if you call it the popular uprising, you are showing a bias. if you call it a coup, you are calling it another, but whatever be, whenit, it cannot you think about the fact that here, the people for 30 years had a military dictatorship and no rights, they are struggling

to figure it out. i want you to help me figure it all your thoughts to the table and your biases, as we all have. we try not to, but we might. what i took from all of this is that it was an absolute fear on the part of let's say the majority of the people there. , that morsi was not living up to his commitment to be inclusive. , dr. done, when you explained this temporary government is including islamists, as well as secular list -- secularists, i think that is what you said, isn't promised washe everyone would be brought in. my sense of it is absolute fear that egypt was moving in a direction that was very

dangerous and if something was not done, they would lose their chance at true democracy. am i conflating things? am i being too simplistic? youuld like to know, if were to analyze why it happened, how would you explain why this happened after an election? -- uld start with >> i would say there are several reasons. i think there was a perception many of the people who voted for morsi felt betrayed. they had expected there would be inclusiveness and there was not. all segments when of society were involved, there was also looking at what was the near collapse of the egyptian economy. life was getting dramatically worse on a daily basis and there was a perception this was literally a leadership that almost seemed indifferent.

what you had was the perception of a leadership that was authoritarian, exclusive, intolerant, and incompetent. but iically produced very broad alienation across different segments of society. there are multiple factors, but it added up to that. >> dr. done? >> senator, first of all, i do agree with you about our aid being leveraged. a couple of times, the gulf aid has come up, as though, this could just replace our aid if we withdraw it. the military assistance the united states has extended, it means something beyond the dollars only. >> we will bring you this in its entirety beginning in about 2.5 hours. it is also available on our website.

washingtonext journal, a conversation on the performance of the u.s. economy since president obama took office. s --guest u.s. global energy production and consumption. we will talk with adam, the head of the u.s. energy administration, and frank of the center for strategic and international studies. c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the treatment of hunger strikers at guantánamo compromises the core ethical values of our medical profession. the ama has long endorsed the principle that every competent to refuses the right++ medical intervention. the world medical association and the international red cross have determined speeding through the use of restraints is not

only an ethical violation, but contravenes common article three of the geneva conventions. >> my concern is, let's just set aside the numbers you might or might not feel you can safely push out. , and is an unknown number the president said it was 46, that you could never try. peoplehonestly think the behind me and the people impelling this hearing will haggling for the releasewww prisoners justwwwwwwwwe in the unitedwwwwwwwww states? tothe fear-based argumentwww facilitytanamo baywwww open is hard to understand. brought to the u.s. foroo or medicalooggóóóóóó .reatmentswwwwwwwwwww the detainees were both no threat to our national security. the 86 men who had been cleared for transfer should be transferred. we must find lawfulçççççç

law of wars for allçççççç detainees, as we have done in every conflict. c-span, theend, on senate judiciary subcommittee on human rights looks at the implications of closing the guantánamo bay prison saturday. also, on c-span2's book tv, live coverage of the roosevelt green from the fdr library and museum in new york. live, on c-span three's american history tv, president obama and --ck hagel kemeny great commemorate the sixth anniversary of the commute -- korean war. republican members of the senate homeland security committee boycotted today's confirmation hearing for the president's nominee for the number two

position at the department of homeland security. currently, the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services has been accused of improperly helping a company secure in international investor visa. he was questioned about the allegation that today's hearing. this is an hour and 40 minutes. republican

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to this hearing. welcome, secretary mayorkas. welcome to senator feinstein. and certainly welcome to our colleagues on the committee, especially senator landrieu, who has agreed to say a few words about you before we get started. senator feinstein and senator landrieu have a markup going on right now. they have come here to introduce secretary mayorkas. we are grateful you could come.

>> thank you, and i appreciate the courtesy, so thank you. it is a pleasure for me to introduce president obama's nominee for deputy secretary of the department of homeland security, alejandro mayorkas. i have known ali for many years and have been proud to recommend him to president clinton for position of the united states attorney for the central district of california as well as to president obama for his current position as director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. the role of deputy secretary within the department is really an important one. the deputy secretary is charged with overseeing the agency's efforts to counter terrorism and enhance the security and management of our borders, while facilitating trade and travel and enforcing our immigration laws. additionally, this secretary assists in safeguarding and securing cyberspace, supports national security in times of

disaster, and that is in coordination with federal, state, local, international, and private sector partners. mr. mayorkas brings to this office a diverse background and a set of experiences in both the private and public sectors. born in cuba, mr. mayorkas earned his b.a. with distinction from the university of california. he earned his law degree from loyola in 1985. those who have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him regard him as being highly intelligent, thoughtful, kind and compassionate, and dedicated to doing the right thing. from 1989 to 1998, he served as an assistant u.s. attorney for the central district of california, where he prosecuted a wide array of federal crimes,

specializing in the prosecution of white-collar crimes. federal law enforcement agencies recognized his success with multiple awards. for example, he received commendations from fbi director louis freeh for his successful prosecution of operation polar cap, which was the largest money-laundering case in the nation at the time. he continued to distinguish himself by becoming the first u.s. attorney in the central district of california to be appointed from within the office. he created the civil rights section in the office to prosecute hate crimes. he developed an innovative program to address violent crime by targeting criminals' possession of firearms, prosecuting street gangs, and developing after-school programs to help at-risk youth realize their potential. he uniquely demonstrated the ability to simultaneously be

firm with criminals and supportive and empowering our future leaders. as supported by the many law enforcement and community awards he received during his tenure of u.s. attorney, mr. mayorkas' accomplishments have extended beyond his district. he expanded his community outreach programs in cooperation with international players in the fight against crime. he directly resolved cases while also overseeing hundreds of attorneys, addressing immigration matters, which included complex and sensitive prosecution of individuals and rings, reducing false immigration documents, illegal reentry cases, and alien smuggling conspiracies. at the administration for the drug enforcement administration, the director noted that he was

instrumental in addressing violent crime and expanded cooperation with other nations to address the growing threat of transnational crime. with his prosecuting white- collar crime, public corruption, computer-related crime, and international money laundering, she wrote such a broad base of experience provided him with a unique perspective on threats to national security. he further developed his sharp he further developed his sharp legal skills as a partner at a firm from 2001 to 2009, where he represented companies in high- profile and sensitive government enforcement cases. he was recognized by his worldwide firm with an annual award for leadership, excellence, and citizenship, and

was named by the "national law journal" as one of the 50 most influential minority lawyers in america in 2008. since his confirmation as director of the uscis four years ago, he has continued to exert his influence through leadership, excellence, and citizenship in accomplishing the agency's mission. he has improved immigration services and policies of uscis by realigning its priorities for a modern-day america that seeks to preserve its legacy as a nation of immigrants while ensuring national security and public safety -- no easy task. throughout his current role, he has successfully preserved and increased the integrity of our immigration laws by decreasing fraud and bringing accountability to our immigration system. he has worked to secure our

nation's criminal and immigration laws in the face of increasing gang and border violence. as technology advances, so too have our needs to prevent fraud and to safeguard immigration documents from tampering. mr. mayorkas has confronted the challenge by enhancing the scope and frequency of national security vetting of applicants for immigration benefits by redesigning immigration documentation with enhanced security features. he has led uscis and the other half of its mission, to preserve the role of america as a just nation that treats immigrants at our shores humanely and with an eye toward the potential they bring to our nation. to combat notarial fraud that undermine the integrity of the immigration system, mr. mayorkas has launched the unauthorized practice of immigration law initiative.

it is a nationwide effort with federal, state, and municipal agencies and enforcement authorities that work to raise awareness in communities and investigate and prosecute wrongdoers. after the 2010 earthquake in haiti, he developed and implemented a humanitarian parole program on an emergency basis to save orphans and unite children with their adoptive families here. significantly, under president obama's directive, he granted deferred action to immigrants who brought children to this country to remain in the united states. he swiftly implemented the deferred action for childhood arrivals initiative in 60 days. in less than one year, over 500,000 people have applied in the united states, the only home they have known.

he has realigned the agency's organizational structure, including offices and facilities worldwide, to more better serve. he has budget reviews that have resulted in cost saving measures that resulted in $160 million in budget cuts for fiscal year 2010. mr. chairman, i took an additional amount of time because i know there are currents swirling about his confirmation, but i also know that this is an incredibly special human being who is well deserving of this position, and i know that this committee will do the right thing and confirm him for nomination to the floor of the senate. thank you very much.

>> thank you very much. senator landrieu, thank you so much for taking time for joining this committee. we welcome your remarks. >> thank you. i will be brief. i wanted to join senator feinstein in that fine and comprehensive and strong and excellent introduction of alejandro mayorkas. i have come to know this gentleman very well over the last several years and want the members of this committee to know that i have hardly worked with a finer individual in any department of the federal

government. he is a can-do administrator with a heart for people, an eye on the bottom line, and a person that is absolutely full of the highest integrity. unlike senators feinstein, i did not know alejandro mayorkas 16 years ago. i met him two years ago this month and was so taken by his immediate willingness to help in a very serious problem, mr. chairman, that had to do with children that been literally lost, stuck in orphanages for years, parents in america desperate for someone to listen to them, and this man, who runs the largest immigration agency in the world, with all of the pressure that is on him from all of us, took time out of his schedule and identified some staff that could help. to me, that says it all.

and we need people in our government that are willing to serve people directly, that understand the people, and i know alejandro mayorkas is that kind of person. but i just want to say how strongly i feel that the president could not have found a better person with more integrity than the gentleman sitting before us today, and i am going to support him heartily, i am going to talk with every member of this committee on both sides of the aisle, and urge them to quickly confirm this nominee, because this department needs all of the focus and help, and as the chair of the homeland security appropriations committee, i hope my voice and my opinion will be strongly heard, and i thank you, mr. chairman, and best of luck to you, mr. mayorkas, and i thank your family for being here. his wife is not here, his kids, because they are taking a vacation. he has not taken a vacation because he is so busy, but his brother is here to support him, and as a political refugee from cuba, i think he can certainly appreciate the importance of our democracy, our laws, and the significance of citizenship in

the view our nation and the world. thank you. >> thank you. let me say, you could not have better advocates and senator feinstein and senator landrieu, and we are grateful each of you would be here to share your thoughts and your determination to ensure we do the right thing. today we meet consider the nomination of alejandro mayorkas, president obama's choice to serve as deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. he served as director of the citizenship and immigration service. thank you for that service and your willingness to serve for the deputy secretary position. we strive to make sure that federal agencies work better and more efficiently with resources we entrust to them. part of our responsibilities is ensuring we have effective leaders in place to provide central guidance.

our committee must consider administration nominees in both a thorough and timely manner. at the department of homeland security, i believe there are 15 senior division positions that are or will be vacant in the near future. at least six of positions require senate confirmation. i call this phenomenon executive ranch swiss cheese. congressman jason chaffetz, a republican colleague, puts the leadership predicament at the department of homeland security this way -- it is one of the biggest agencies that we have, and it has got one of the lowest levels of morale on record, based on surveys. when you have vacancies at the top, you have this agency that is unfulfilled, there is a total lack of leadership. he has a point. in six weeks we face the prospect of the department led

by an active secretary and an acting deputy secretary. the issues this apartment deals with everyday are daunting, the threat of terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, on a 24/7 basis, border security, immigration reform, and the list goes on and on and on. this department has needed and will continue to be strong leadership. janet napolitano and the former deputy secretary has provided that the last four years. secretary napolitano will be gone by early december. all of us must ensure that we have the leadership for this department soon. having a confirmed deputy secretary of homeland security will help fill this vacuum. it is critical that we carry out our constitutional responsibilities to provide, advise, and consent. although our nominee is

currently director of an agency that provides direction, it is no surprise that i say the next deputy secretary will have some big shoes to fill. the former deputy secretary was respected by this committee on a bipartisan basis for her leadership. it is safe to say the department needs somebody with her level of commitment to tackle the problems head on. it is no small part due to her leadership and that the department has made great strides in many areas. in narrowing the many issues identified as high-risk by gao and my talks with mr. mayorkas, he understands well these challenges and is committed to turning these efforts into moving the department forward. his leadership has earned respect of several former officials, including someone who said she would sit next to you

if it would help. richard skinner, the inspector general, elaine duke, and robert bonner, who have given strong recommendations for mr. mayorkas. i will ask consent that these records and others we have received be included, including one from the u.s. chamber of commerce. we want those included in the hearing record without objection. i would also like to he take a minute to review mr. mayorkas' qualifications. the senate has twice confirmed him for positions. the senate confirmed him by voice vote in 1999 to serve for the u.s. attorney for the central district in california. it did so again in 2009 to serve

as director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. it is as director of that agency that he has made national security a priority by taking on fraud head-on. he created a directive for fraud protection and prevention. he was responsible for turning around the project to create an electronic case management system. now it is on a much sounder footing and is beginning to deliver new capabilities every few months. he was also in charge of standing up a massive new program to defer action for childhood arrivals. not everyone may agree on the merits of this program, but it is one i support. i think we can agree on this, that getting it up and running in a short time, 60 days, is an amazing ccomplishment. with the debate still ongoing, his expertise will be helpful in

leading this department that would be charged with implementing comprehensive immigration reform. this is where the rubber will hit the road. there are also questions that we have recently have been raised about mr. mayorkas' qualifications. over the last 72 hours we have learned through unusual circumstances that the director is the subject of an ongoing dhs inspector general investigation. reports suggest it relates to the purported role he may have played in facilitating investor visas. at this point in time, we do not have all the facts. it is my understanding mr. mayorkas has not even been interviewed by the office of inspector general, despite the investigation began almost a year ago. the office does not have preliminary findings. the initial allegations have not

been confirmed at this point in time and the office of inspector general has found no wrongdoing by mr. mayorkas. i might also add the same inspector general offices has not have a senate confirmed leader for over two years and has had a series of acting directors, one of whom is under investigation himself by a member of this committee. before this sensitive information was disseminated in the remarkable manner on monday night, the office of inspector general had not informed mr. mayorkas of its investigation. rather than allowing rumor and speculation and innuendo to rule the day, this hearing will allow us to continue to process the vetting of this nominee. i recognize the republican colleagues, in a letter sent yesterday, would likely withhold all action, including a hearing on his nomination until the inspector general has concluded the investigation, i respectfully disagree. first, the hearing provides an appropriate setting for members

to ask questions of the nominee. this type of open forum where its members ask questions and the nominee is given an opportunity to respond is encouraged. we know it is months away from completing its investigation. given that this office is facing its own set of challenges, the investigation will not be concluded in a timely manner. i believe -- with the acting secretary until the investigation is completed. especially given that september 7, janet napolitano will be heading up the california education system. how can we honestly suspect the department of homeland security to carry out its mission without strong and stable leadership? given the qualifications of the nominee, i believe it is important for us to proceed with the nomination today.

given the qualifications of the nominee, i believe it is important for us to proceed with the nomination today. we will be practicing something taught to me by my parents, to treat people the way you want to be treated. one of the questions i asked him and i put myself in your shoes, and if someone were questioning my integrity, we live our whole lives with integrity. to have them question by innuendo and twist it in the wind, do you need that? we are trying to get people to

come and serve in these positions. the inspector general for this department has dropped out of the race. why go through all of that? we need to move. we need to move and hold a hearing. we will have the hearing today. at the end of the day, i am interested in nothing but the truth. i hope my colleagues feel the same way. all nominees have an opportunity to address questions about their experiences and qualifications for the position, both in public and private.

we have had an opportunity to speak with mr. mayorkas privately on several occasions and be questioned by us. this week i had the opportunity to review his fbi file. i thought maybe i missed something. his file has convinced me that he should have the opportunity to be heard. when he spoke with my colleagues, i asked if we wanted to go forward with this. when i asked him if he wanted to go forward with the hearing, he said that he is eager to appear. we are going to make that possible for you. we welcome your brothers james and anthony. i am glad you are here. i understand you have daughters and a wife somewhere else. we are happy that you're here. that being said, i'm going to introduce our witness and swear him in.

then we will ask him questions. the biographical questionnaire submitted by the committee -- and had his financial statement reviews by the office of government ethics. without objection, it will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the financial data, which will be available for public inspection in the committee's office. rules require that all witnesses at nomination hearings are asked to give their testimony under oath. i will ask you in joining me in standing and raising your right hand. you swear that the testimony you're about to give the committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

truth, so help you god? >> yes. >> feel free to introduce your family. i will ask you three perfunctory questions than then we will open it up up to the committee. please proceed. welcome. >> thank you very much. chairman, distinguished numbers of the committee, i am honored by the president's nomination to be here today. i am honored by senator feinstein's introductory remarks. also of those from yourself. in my professional life, i have

served for 16 years. my drive to serve the country are grounded in my family history and upbringing. my parents brought my sister and me to this country as political refugees in 1960, having escaped the commonest takeover of cuba. my parents instilled in their children a deep and everlasting appreciation of the freedoms and liberties that define our country and a respect for its laws. our nation, they taught us, is like no other. its qualities are never to be taken for granted, instead cherished and protected. mr. chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my beautiful wife and our two young

daughters are on a vacation with our daughter's grandmother. we thought it was important that they carry through with those long-ago planned travels because there may not be many more of them. far less beautiful, but no less loved, my two brothers are here. [laughter] they are here in in their stead, and i am deeply grateful. >> they look like they have your back. >> i am deeply grateful. my brother james and my brother anthony traveled across the country to be here. i have served our country for almost 12 years as a federal prosecutors in the u.s. attorney's office for the central district of california. each and every day, day and night, and most often seven days a week, i enforced the laws of this land, and did so aggressively and with distinction.

i did so first as an assistant u.s. attorney, then as a senate confirmed u.s. attorney. it was an incredible honor for me to stand in a court of law with law enforcement at my side to prosecute the laws of this land. i announced to the judge and the jury -- for almost four years, i have served on immigration services. its workforce spans the globe. with a dedicated and talented workforce, some of whom are here today. we have prioritized and strengthened our agency's national security safeguard, and are combating fraud to protect the integrity of the system. mr. chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my parents not only instilled in us a deep appreciation for the freedoms and liberties that define our country and our

abiding respect for the law. they also taught us to lead a principled life, grounded in values, ethics, honor,and integrity. their teachings, advice, lectures, admonitions, and support were strong, but not more powerful than the lesson of example. they conducted themselves as i expect to lead my life. as this committee considers what i have accomplished, it is a glimpse into the character of my parents. i look forward to your questions. i am here to answer them. and i am honored to be here. >> thank you for being here, for your service, and willingness to testify. i'm going to delay my questioning and turn to the

senator from north dakota. >> thank you. i have to tell you -- >> can you hold for just a second? >> i need to ask three perfunctory questions. one, is there anything in your background that might prevent a conflict of interest? >> no. >> is there anything that would prevent you from discharging the responsibilities for the office for which were nominated? >> no. >> is there anything that would keep you from appearing and testifying in a court of law if confirmed? >> no. >> thank you. as a preliminary matter, i want to express to the chairman how much i agreed with his comments this morning. and with his concern about a

process that seems to get short- circuited by rumors and innuendo and lack of credible evidence. i want to tell you how much i enjoyed meeting you in my office as we relayed security concerns, understanding that your commitment to law enforcement, your commitment and support by people you worked with, which means the world to me that cops like you. you are willing to do the tough work of taking tough cases to trial and representing the u.s. in cases that maybe other people avoid. i appreciated hearing that history about you. i appreciate having the chance to meet with you.

hopefully, if everything comes to fruition the way we think it will, i look forward to the opportunity of bringing you to north dakota and introducing you to the unique challenges we have in the northern border. i don't think -- i guess i have to decide this morning whether we will have the discussion i thought we were going to have. i think it will hopefully help clear some things up and give you a chance to respond. it is hard, from a witness's standpoint, from your standpoint, to have an opportunity to respond to what can be a frustrating situation for you and your family. i'm going to jump right in. in this situation with funds management where you had multiple requests to intervene in the process, what structures, rules, or practices did you put in place to make sure that no

ethics were violated? >> thank you, senator. it was a pleasure to meet you as well. it will be an honor to be confirmed and have the opportunity to travel with you to your state and explore the challenges of the northern border. senator, if i can, the issues -- the difficult, complex issues of law and policy that challenge the agency and present opportunities for resolution percolate up through the supervisory chain, when they need resolution and when they have broad application, the manner in which those cases reach me is through cases.

we are an operation. we are a large agency. we protect our nations security. we combat fraud and assess the applications that come before us through the cases that they present to us. i have become involved in those complex, difficult, legal policy issues when they are raised to my attention by my colleagues, which very often occurs. by members of congress, which very often occurs. by members of the public or applications themselves. we deferred to adjudicators on the frontline to adjudicate cases. i do not adjudicate cases.

i address legal policy issues that are brought to my attention through the channels that i have outlined. >> what types of verbal orders or requests did you make to your staff on this issue that would not be captured by e-mail or in any other written record? >> are you speaking with respect to the -- matter? >> yes. >> i sat around a table with my colleagues, which is my practice when difficult issues rise to my level. i sat around with my colleagues and we resolved the issues. >> so there would have been some verbal communications beyond e- mails and written correspondence? >> most certainly.

we have set up structures with response to this question to resolve difficult legal issues. sometimes we are able to resolve the issues with colleagues who are handling the matter directly. sometimes different people have to be involved in the discussion and bring their expertise. we have set up senior policy committees. we have set up leadership meetings. we have set up open and collaborative forums to resolve the issues. i do not resolve those issues alone. >> would there have been a scheduling note of who would've attended the meetings? >> there very well might be. certainly, there were a number of people around the table when we discussed the issues. >> i believe it is safe to say that the visa program has

challenges attached to it through its nature. what added responsibility does an agency leader have when dealing with the program that may be considered controversial as a result of the way the program is structured? what responsibility do they have to make sure that the orders are clear and the staff understands the potential pitfalls? >> i appreciate the question. let me speak to my responsibility. then let me speak about the program about which you have inquired. it is my responsibility to assure that we administer our responsibilities, abilities to safeguard the nation's security

and to protect the integrity of the system. we do it in strict accordance with the law. based on the law and the facts oma and nothing else. we adhere to the highest ideals of public service, and they are correct. that is how i carry out my responsibilities. the program is controversial. it is comples. it is like no other program we have administered. frankly, it is a program that is primarily a business and economic program, and not an immigration program. what is involved in the case is an assessment, whether foreign capital is invested properly in a new commercial enterprise, whether the amount of capital is at risk throughout the term of the investment, whether the

business enterprise proposed is specifically detailed and viable, and whether the models submitted to us to estimate future jobs are sound and reasonable. those are some of the issues involved in the adjudication of the ev5 program. as a director of this agency, i observed that the program was a staffed with nine adjudicators, no economists, no business analysts, and no specialists in national security or fraud detection. throughout my tenure, we have built the program. we have bright individuals dedicated to ensuring the integrity of the program as it has grown throughout the years. >> i have a second round of questions if you're able. himsenator mccaskill?

>> from your record, i see that you're a prosecutor. i like to call what you are, a 911 prosecutor. i did not have the luxury like my colleagues did. as you well know, we thought we were the real prosecutors, and you're not. having said that, i know that you moved up to u.s. attorney, which is extraordinarily unusual and speaks to your capabilities. as a prosecutor, i will be candid with you. these things floating out there, they may be rumor or innuendo, or political, but you have to do a rebuttal. you cannot talk around it. i will give you opportunity to say what you want to say about

what is being said about you because you are not going to get another opportunity like this. this thing will swirl, and there will be incriminations, and it will be a political brouhaha. i respect the ig office, but this ig office is trouble for a lot of reasons. why don't you take a few minutes here, and you have five, and say what you would want us to know about the accusations being made about you, that you tried to use inappropriately, your position, to influence a matter because of who was interested in the outcome. >> thank you for the opportunity. let me share with you if i may i felt like a 911 prosecutor. it was monday evening when i was

forwarded a copy of the e-mail that was published to this committee about an apparent inspector general investigation of which i reportedly am the subject. i had no idea. frankly, i do not understand it. i will say this, and i say it firmly, and i say it unequivocally, and i say it after 16 years of service to this country, 12 of which were as a law enforcement official, i have never in my career exercised undue influence to influence the outcome of a case. i have never based my decisions on who brings a case, but rather upon the facts and the law.

i have taken my oaths of office, and i live my life by those oaths. i refer to this on a personal level in my opening statement. my entire life, i have tried to live in a way that brings honor to my parents. there has never been an instance in which i have failed to do so in terms of the integrity with which i have brought my efforts to bear on everything i have done, whether in the private sector or the public sector. i look forward to learning about the obligations. i do not quite understand them, but i will tell you that the allegations are unequivocally

false. the gulf coast matter is a matter about which we received complaints in 2011. issues in that case rose to my attention because the ev5 program is complex. a few issues were brought to my attention, and i addressed them with my colleagues around the table. >> normally i don't jump in. i think it might be helpful for us to have a basic understanding of the program. my understanding is that you did not create the program. it was not created in this administration. it was created in 1992, and we are struggling to come out of a recession. >> you mean this decade, not this century. >> it was created in 1992.

what they were trying to do was figure out how to get the economy moving. one way to do that is have access to capital. take a few minutes and give us what i will call ev5-101. >> i will be eager to continue my response. the program has its creation. it is premised on the belief that individuals in foreign countries that are willing to invest in the u.s., and those investments yield jobs. they have an opportunity then to gain lawful status in the united states.

that is the top level of the issue. >> is it a green card? >> they first get a conditional green card. then after two years, if the jobs had been created, 10 jobs specifically have been created or are likely to be created within a reasonable period of time. this gives you an idea of the issues we wrestle with. but if they are created, the conditions of permanent resident status are removed, and the foreign individual is a lawful permanent resident. therefore, they are eligible for citizenship after a number of years, provided that they qualify. >> continue please. >> the allegation is that i somehow -- by somehow sitting

around the table and resolving a couple of difficult issues that were unsettled in our agency in the administration of the program. it was nothing that i have not done hundreds of times when difficult issues reached my attention. the agency needs resolution of them. -- is interesting to note that i summarize the allegations to be a favored treatment was afforded the gulf coast. noteworthy is the fact that the complaints persisted in 2012, and they continue to this day. also noteworthy --

>> what complaints are you referencing specifically? >> delays, layer of the agency to adjudicate the case. on this particular case, the complaints exist. >> so it has not been resolved? >> i don't know the status of the cases. >> the people that you allegedly tried to help? >> i don't know the status of last i heard they were not. and, notably, when the report was published with respect to raising questions, with respect to the integrity of this business enterprise, as i do in all circumstances, drawing upon

my prioritization of national inurity and fraud detection the agency in my execution of those authorities, as soon as i learned of the concern with perspective, ie referred the case to the front detection and national security directorate. up.y time is i appreciate your many years. i was teasing about you not being a 911 prosecutor. >> that may be only time we disagree. >> there will be many times we disagree but it could be on finance and contracts, so thank you for that. >> thank you, senator mccaskill.

what were the difficult issues you canded to that personally address? >> when i get involved in novel questions before us, what we see to do is resolve them for the benefit of the agency as a whole. the one complex issue i remember so clearly is that we actually memorialized the resolution and the new policy memorandum not be published publicly and through the agency as guidance to the adjudicators of may of this year. the resolution of that case, of course, showed up in prior drafts of the final policy memorandum we just published. the issue is this -- there is an

administrative appeal decision published by our agency called in the matter of izummi. >> that must be an acronym. >> it is not. one of the requirements in the ev5 program is that the ford investors capital must be at risk throughout the term of the investment. the matter of izumi stands for the proposition that a redemption agreement in the transaction documents against foreign investors capital being at risk. in other words, if you could redeem your investment to ring the duration of the relative time, your not at risk and

satisfy the legal requirement. the case that was presented to my attention was the following is it the mere existence of a redemption agreement that disqualifies the individual from satisfying the legal requirement that the b at risk or is it the question of looking at the terms and whether the terms militate against the requirement that b at risk? to the best of my recollection, the individual investor according to the deal documents could convert his or her common shares to preferred shares or vice versa. i don't recall. the deal documents provided, the redemption provided there was

not at the time a market for either for the common shares or preferred shares. nor may there ever be a market for those shares. the conclusion was reached around the table that quite frankly and as a matter of law in the interpretation of the deal document, the capital remained at risk because there may not ever be a market for that capital and the redemption may never be realized. that's an example of a difficult issue that could rise to my attention. when we resolve it, we can provide guidance to our adjudicators so they can adjudicate cases in strict adherence of the lot more ably. >> when i first heard about it, i didn't know much about it until this month. i learned a bit and i'm still

learning, but it seems to me this is a strange program to be located -- you meet people with skills and they have entrepreneurship and this is actually an idea, we have to have somebody to look at this and say does this actually make any sense? would you respond to that. and make sure you have the kind of people in your agency -- make sure you have the kind of talent and your agency to help make the right judgment calls. >> thank you very much. i would like to answer that in a couple of parts if i may. we received more complaints about our administration of the eb5 program than we do any other area in our work. we receive complaints from the public, applicants and

petitioners and we receive complaints from members of congress in both parties. >> and this is bipartisan? >> it is absolutely bipartisan and there's probably not a week that goes by that i don't receive complaints from members of congress with respect to our administration of the program. quite frankly, there have been a number of eb5 program issues that have been raised to my attention that i have addressed with my colleagues and i recall the members concerns were actually valid and we were able to resolve those. >> were there any interested where they were not valid? >> most certainly. we respond to the concerns not by who is the author of the concern but rather by what the

facts and law demand. that is our principal. eb5 cases have been brought to my attention within the agency. the administration brought a case to my attention because we were terminating a regional center for the first time and we wanted to make sure our decision was correct because the stakes are high and the decision was well reasoned and well written. my office became involved then. as i mentioned, the program requires expert economic analysis and clear and sophisticated understanding of business proposals and the myriad of legal issues that those arenas raise. when i first came to the agency, i reach out to partners in the federal government when i learned about the program and

posited to them they needed to become involved as partners with us because they had the expertise to bring to bear. the department of commerce would be one example and our discussions with other government agencies in sharing responsibility for the administration of the program are ongoing. in the interim, i do not ban still. i do not stand still in progress is needed. progress is an obligation of ours to achieve. what i did was i introduced to the program economists. we expanded the pool of adjudicators. i don't think we did right for many years in support of our adjudicators because we put them in charge of cases and did not equip them with the tools to address those cases as i think they would most want because

they strive for excellence. i brought economic expertise and business expertise. i brought fraud detection to national security expertise. those efforts have been evolving and most recently, we decided to create a new program. embedded in it will be national security personnel and a greater level of expertise. >> just to follow-up, there is reference to several employees that you retaliated against them. i think they are in a california office. this was not viewed to be a matter of retaliation. do you have any recollection of that? could you put a little light on that?

>> the office of special counsel determined were no facts to support the allegations. decisions are very difficult to to make and they are singularly the most taxing aspects of jobs when one has supervisor will responsibilities. one has to act in the best interest of the agency. personnel moves are not necessarily disparagement. or anything critical. as a supervisor, as a manager and leader, one has to fit the needs of the agencies with the talent of the people most ably. my commitment is to the talent of the agency as a whole and my commitment is to the laws we are sworn to uphold. >> mr. chairman, i would like to

just for a moment talk about becoming director of homeland security, if that is possible. i have one question. we are deeply concerned about morale of the department of homeland security. i know we have had these discussions before and if you are confirmed as the deputy, what will you do to improve morel within the agency and what steps would you take to bring more cohesion to the group? >> thank you very much. i have been honored and continue to be honored to work with the men and women of u.s. citizenship and immigration services in the department of homeland security of which are agency is a part erie it we have an incredibly talented and dedicated workforce.

a workforce that is deeply committed to the mission of the department and that loves its mission. it would be my honor if i am confirmed to be sure our workforce has the tools they require to work at the very highest levels of excellence to which they aspire and that they feel fully supported and that they are trained and provided with open and fair processes. i will engage with the workforce and i will engage with this committee in focusing to ensure that the morale is as high as it should be when one considers the talent of the people and the nobility of the mission. >> when you talk about the

tools, because we all know what can affect morale -- knowing your job but not having the tools, what additional tools do you see as essential to the work of the department of homeland security. >> let me draw upon my experience at u.s. citizenship and immigration services because i spent a great deal of energy and focus on the well-being of our workforce. the workforce has asked for more training.

our immigration law and policy is ever evolving. new decisions are issued. new challenges arise and they have asked for enhanced training to be delivered. they have asked for opportunities for growth, for professional development, and we have delivered professional development programs, details for employees to be exposed to different parts of the agency to grow. managers have asked for training on how to manage and manage people and how to lead people. very often, we pick managers who are experts in the subject matter at issue but not necessarily expertly trained in how to bring out the best in people, how to assist people .when they have challenges and how to promote people when they have successes. those are some examples of tools that a workforce requests and a workforce deserves. >> just one final point. as you have disparaged the

appearance of your brothers, some might suggest they are better looking than you are. [laughter] >> senator, they have not gone through three confirmation hearings. [laughter] >> i would just acknowledge that you may have lost some of your hair but you have not lost your sense of humor, so that is good. we are joined by senator tester from montana. the floor is yours. >> i'm sorry i was late. don't take the senator's remarks to hard because she always talks -- ugly, being ugly to. too. just kidding. thank you for being here. as we talked in my office, we appreciate your willingness to serve. we are in a situation where janet napolitano has stepped down. consequently, there will be an

administration leadership void within the administration is what i meant to say. if confirmed, how will your administration work with congress to make sure it is moving forward even though there will be so many positions in leadership missing at the department? >> thank you very much, senator tester for the question. if i have the privilege of being confirmed as the deputy secretary, i would work with this committee to ensure that the president's nominees to fill the vacancies in the department of homeland security are completed successfully and as swiftly as possible. in the interim, i can say unequivocally that we have tremendous talent within the department of homeland security to ensure that the mission of the department is accomplished successfully, effectively, and efficiently until those

vacancies are filled. >> i want to talk about visa overstays. 40% of folks who are here improperly are because of visa overstays. it's a huge problem in processing and identifying and monitoring or apprehending individuals who overstay their visas. from your perspective, is this an issue of inadequate manpower, inadequate focus, resources, are there statutory obstacles in the road? it seems to me 40% is a little over-the-top. why is it?

>> thank you very much for your question. it's a very important one. the department of homeland security has made great strides in addressing the problem of visa overstays. immigration and customs enforcement, one of the agencies responsible primarily for the important area has significantly improved in its battle to combat visa overstays. we have developed enhanced biographical data to ensure we are aware of the individuals who have overstay their visas. what i will deal immediately, senator, is ensure that immigration and customs enforcement reaches out to your office and informed you with great detail of the great

strides they have made in addressing the problem because they have done so in recent months. >> i appreciate that. i think the immigration bill that recently passed the senate got a long ways in eliminating a lot of those visa overstays. as a side comment, hopefully the house will take that up and not play politics with it because it is important for the country. montana's reservations, in the past i have work to make sure dhs retains a strong relationship with our travel partners. from a personal perspective, do you have any experience working with tribal leaders, uk u.s. attorney or in your current position? >> i do. when i was the united states attorney, i worked with tribal leaders to address some of the challenges they had in the central district of california with respect to enforcement issues on reservations as well as certain civil matters with respect to specifically in california, legal issues involving indian gaming.

i've worked extensively with tribal leaders during my tenure in the united states attorney's office and i take great pride in the close working relationship i was able to achieve with them. if confirmed, i would carry that collaborative teamwork approach to my duties as deputy secretary. >> i appreciate that. i may ask some more questions for the record. i appreciate the chairman of this late time allowing me to ask some questions. i will go back and just say i wish you the best. we need good people in the department of homeland security. we need people who can carry out this task because it is an important one. hopefully what has gone on here today will stop and we will get you confirmed and get you back to work. >> thank you very much, much, senator. it would be an honor. >> my staff has given me a

little information. i asked to get information on eb5 101. it was actually created in 1990, when we were just going into recession. i think the program in 1993 was modified. i think congress added something called the immigrant investor pilot program in order to encourage immigrant investments through designated regional centers. i don't recall hearing much about designated regional centers. i just become governor of my state. though we have all heard of enterprise zones. when i hear designated regional center, i liken it to an enterprise zone. talk to us about designated regional centers and how do they work? what are the kind of people trying to get them established and collect funds to fund the entrepreneurial activities? just give us a little discussion on that, please.

>> the regional center program is indeed a pilot program. it was reauthorized last year. >> my notes say it was introduced in 2012. the word pilot was removed from the 20- year-old program and provided three-year option was a shim and it was cosponsored by a number of our colleagues. adopted by unanimous consent it was cosponsored by a number of our colleagues. very that was about one year ago. >> the regional center is an area of economic activity in which commercial enterprises can be developed, into which foreign capital can be invested in the eb5 program and the jobs can be created in that area of economic activity.

the popularity of the regional center program has increased exponentially over the years and over the last four years -- >> does it have something to do with the worst recession since the great depression and this was a way to try to draw job creation into this? >> outside reports have concluded that indeed the eb5 program and the regional center program has grown exponentially because capital has been

difficult to raise in a challenging economy. there is a great deal of difficult to raise in a interest amongst individuals in other countries to immigrate to the united states and those who can afford it find the program to be a valuable means of doing so. >> there are investors and entrepreneurs and other countries that may be have good

business ideas and have some money. we are looking for someone to invest capital here for job creation rather than can eat with those folks from another country. that is my understanding. is that close to correct? >> it is. specifically that individuals with the requisite amount of capital. it's a minimum of $500,000 or a minimum of $1 million depending on where the regional center is located. they will invest their capital, that requisite amount of capital in a regional center and if u.s. jobs are created, they will have resident status as i outlined earlier. if they qualify under the other legibility requirements, why it has grown, the economic factors others have concluded has a causal link because in a regional center as opposed to a new commercial enterprise outside of a regional center, the job creation can be computed to include not only direct job creation, but indirect job creation. not necessarily just employees of the new commercial enterprise, but jobs that are created as a result of the new commercial enterprise. suppliers would be a perfect example. if a supplier increases its workforce by virtue of the new commercial activity and jobs are created that are attributable to the regional center, then that job creation is attributable to the capital investment and counts to the job creation requirement. this is where the complex economic models to assess potentials for job creations come into play and if one presented those to me, even though i this as a lawyer for many years, i would not know how to adjudicate them.

they are extraordinarily complex and fall within the purview of that and that's why we have not the expertise to bear. there's one additional point i would like to make and that's the following. with growth in a program comes the potential for challenges to the program's integrity. we have of course seen cases where individuals have sought to make misrepresentations to us in order to avail themselves of the

program for which they are not qualified or, worse yet, individuals who seek to avail themselves of entry into this country through the program when they made those a threat to the country. >> what do you do about that kind of fraud? >> we've done great deal. this is our highest ird, to help secure our nation and protect the integrity of the system of which we are guardians. we have reached out to the law enforcement and intelligence communities and developed stronger and closer working relationships. we have increased the staffing of our national security personnel and we are embedding them in the eb5 program.

we have reached out to the security and exchange commission to make sure they help and based communities and developed on my law enforcement days to the highest levels of the security exchange commission to make sure they brought their enforcement efforts and expertise to this very important area. we were substantial cooperators and partners in the first successful sec enforcement action against an eb5 program in chicago, illinois. >> how do these designated centers become -- are there a lot of them? hundreds? >> i don't know the number of regional centers that exist -- >> would be more than a hundred or less than a hundred? >> i don't want to speculate to the committee.

the highest levels of the >> how do they get created? >> from my understanding, because i'm the director and i don't get involved in seeing the actual applications and petitions for the business plans themselves, but people develop business ideas for the development of commercial enterprises. >> american business people? >> people here in the united states. they develop business plans for the development of those enterprises, commercial enterprises. once those business plans and commercial enterprises are outlined and they have approval from us to proceed, they begin to attract investors and quite frankly, i don't know if they begin to attract investors before we approve them or not, but they develop business plans and begin to execute on their business plans and present them to us. if we approve them as regional center designations, they proceed with the execution of

their plans from there. >> knowing my colleagues and me, if i had somebody wanted to create jobs in delaware and wanted to create one of these designated regional centers, in order to increase employment opportunities in my state, i would be interested in seeing that succeed. a number of my colleagues, i don't think i've ever reached out to your office, but a number of colleagues do call your office and in some cases you, and say there is this effort to create employee activity in my state. they probably don't call to say you are doing a rate job, but

they probably called to raise concerns. will you talk about the concerns my colleagues might raise? and they probably do not call to say, you are doing a great job and keep it up. maybe they do. my guess is they call to raise concerns. would you talk about concerns my colleagues or governors might raise and the kinds of concerns that might be raised by someone who is attempting to establish

one of these designated centers, like, it is taking too long, or i have not agreed to establish the center. can you share with us the nature of those conversations? >> thank you. we received e-mails, calls, letters, and members -- four members of congress of both parties. more often than weekly and more often than once a week, i assure you. it is into a particular jurisdiction and the creation of jobs for u.s. workers in that jurisdiction, a need and a priority that is held in times of economic challenge. the complaints vary widely, one that we most often here is we are taking too long. we have goals of approximately six months but we do not meet that goal. rarely, and sometimes the time extend longer. sometimes, for very important and valid reasons, making sure we are right according to the laws and the facts, making sure the integrity of the application is a short, making sure there is not a threat to our security. we are being inconsistent in our adjudications. we are being untimely. we are not adhering to the law. we are not following our established policies. the complaints are diverse. there was one very noticeable -- notable complaint that i recall because it spoke -- it accused us of being unfair. that we had made decisions in the case and then we changed our

minds. the concerns of members of congress was that that was inequitable, that is this developers relied on our earlier decisions and for us to change course midstream seemed inequitable. i looked into that. consistent with the principles to which i referred at the outset of the hearing, if something speaks of a difficult legal policy challenged the agency confronts, i looked into the matter around the table with my colleagues and agreed with concern. my colleagues asked me to get involved in the resolution of the matter and i did and i made a decision that was going in the wrong direction and made it right in the spirit of the letter and the law and the policies we have sworn to uphold. the temperature of the complaints we receive are equally diverse. neither the 10th -- temperature nor the author of the complaint are material to our decision- making. the decision-making is based on the law and the facts. when i get involved with an issue, like the one to which i

just referred, my guiding principle is nobody -- no different than the guiding principle of the adjudicator and the one i articulated and emphasized throughout my tenure. we do with the law and the facts require and nothing less and nothing more. my colleagues asked me to get involved in the resolution of the matter and i did and i made a decision that was going in the wrong direction and made it right in the spirit of the letter and the law and the policies we have sworn to uphold. the temperature of the complaints we receive are -- and nothing otherwise. >> my understanding is among the many people establishing one of these designated regional centers was jeremy, who is interested in bringing green technology to the state of virginia. also ended up doing it in gulf coast states. one of the reasons senator andrew was here was because apparently she and part of the economic developments in her

state, they are interested in creating a center, that is my understanding, and would like to encourage that. could you share if there is any medication you have with respect to create one center in virginia or maybe one in the golf course, any meetings you have or telephone conversations you recall? >> i was asked to attend a meeting so i can hear in person his complaints.

>> what was that? >> quite some time ago. i heard the complaints and that was the extent of the interaction. i should say that i engaged with the public very often. i meet with associations, groups, individuals, representatives, and the like, who voiced concerns, who prays us when we do our jobs well. one of my areas i focus on are to increase and -- to the -- so we are transparent not only to the public we serve but to be media, whose responsibility it is in part to hold us accountable. and, of course, to this committee, the committees of oversight, to which we are held accountable. i heard the complaints and i

moved on with my work. groups, individuals, >> did you hear from them again after the meeting? >> i recall -- let me back up. did you come back to your agency and say, after leaving with him and the other folks, let's do things differently and change our course in this meeting? how did you react once you got up to work? >> the answer to your question is absolutely not. i do remember returning to the office and complaining about the fact i had to hear complaints. that is all.

>> you are probably used to hearing complaints for this. there are probably a lot of them. >> yes. my mantra for the workforce is the following. do not shrink from criticism. just worked very hard to not deserve it. >> ok. the basic question here, for those who are dealing with the sources, anonymous assertions, is a question of whether you have laced your hands on the scales of justice whether it is somehow, in this case in the golf course -- gulf coast or other places, that you have placed her hands on the scales of justice to change the decision. would you respond to that on the record? >> mr. chairman, for 12 years as a federal prosecutor, i served as an officer in the court.

i have not changed my approach. i continue to hold myself up as an officer of the court. i am worth the law. i enforce the law based on the facts. i do not put my finger on the scale of justice. the scale of justice is based on the facts and the law and nothing else. i should say the gulf coast complained in 2011, 2 thousand 12, and they continue to complain in 2013. we will follow the law and administer the law based on the prints bulls which i articulated and nothing less and nothing otherwise.

i will say, for someone to be accused of tipping the scales in a 2013, referred a -- referring to 2000 -- referring to security, based on a question of private integrity, seems a bit contradictory.

it is very difficult to have allegations swirling and not have an opportunity to address them. i am eager to be interviewed by the inspector general's office. i wish i had been interviewed earlier. >> i was reacting to the inspector general and his department. two years since we have had that. one last question, before we close, and then give you a short opportunity to make a closing statement. my role of governor, every month, i meet with my legal counsel and we go over pardon request.

my legal counsel would make recommendations and we go through the case. my staff would reach out to other people and ask them questions. recommended for a pardon by the board of pardons. we would ask for input. one of my colleagues, a question for a pardon, being considered by president lyndon. the president is about to leave office. there is a rush. our understanding is that someone reached out to you. can you share that?

>> most certainly. thank you for the opportunity. yes. that question was posed to me when i appeared before the judiciary committee in the united states senate. the white house reached out for me when i was the state attorney for the district of california and asked for whether i supported -- it had been prosecuted in the district of minnesota. my fellow united states attorney, and i of form -- informed them i did not know the facts of the case and that deference should be afforded on the federal prosecutor. >> thank you. i want to give you an opportunity to make a short statement. thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you for the privilege of appearing before you and distinguished members of the community. let me say one of the greatest sources of honor i have had is to serve alongside the men and women of united dates citizenship. it is extraordinarily dedicated and talented. it has been equally an honor to serve as an assistant united states -- united states attorney. i love public service. i love aspiring to fulfill the highest ideals of public service. i love being an officer of the court. i love being a guardian of the law. i love the privilege and honor of always doing the right thing. i also love my family, i love my two brothers, and they are here, and i love the family they are representing air. i adored my parents. my parents were individuals of unflinching integrity and ethics and honor.

i have executed my public service responsibilities in a way of which they would be proud. if i have the privilege of being confirmed as the deputy secretary of homeland security, i will continue to do so. thank you. >> thank you for those words. when we met earlier this week, we talked a little bit about your parents. you said these words, and i will

paraphrase. this is what you said. "should i live my life to honor my parents? looking down, my guess is they are very proud of their three sons. it was thomas jefferson who used to say, it will know the truth, they will not make a mistake. the purpose for this hearing is to try try to ensure we get to the truth. that we do not hear about rumor and innuendo and on confidential sources, anonymous sources, investigations that take not just weeks, but months, now almost a year. we have to get to the truth. you helped us. i am disappointed some of our colleagues could not join us today. my hope is a will have an opportunity to consider what has happened today and what we have learned. i also hope the acting inspector general or whoever is in charge these days, homeland security, i hope they put their foot on the

accelerator and get this done. justice delayed is justice denied. we have a department without a confirmed secretary and will soon be without a secretary. we need to address it. this one perhaps more than any needs strong leadership. they have that in you and others with whom you have served. they will need it in the months and years to come as we deal with cyber attacks occurring at this very moment, terror attacks which are being planned, challenges being able to implement it, and with god knows how many other challenges are before us. the last thing i would say is a word on integrity. one of my favorite sayings, integrity, if you have got it, nothing else matters. integrity, if you do not have it, nothing else matters.

it sounds to me that your parents infuse in you and your brothers a fair amount of integrity. we appreciate that. we appreciate your presence here. we will reopen until noon tomorrow. this mission of statements and questions, for the record, and this hearing is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> tonight, house leaders eric cantor and hoyer. then, the nfirmation hearing for homeland security deputy secretary nominee. , the u.s.orning chamber of commerce and aarp host a discussion on ways to get more americans to save for retirement. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. economists talk about immigration on the u.s. job market. we will have live coverage here on c-span. >> he talks to her.

they all done that. they are all strong women. they accompany usually a strawman to where he was. say that is their main role, is confidant to the president. >> our original series examines the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency, lest the encore presentation of "first ladies" weeknights in august at 9:00 p.m. eastern starting august 5 on c-span. andt today, eric cantor debatedederal standing to fund the federal government when a fiscal year expires in two months. this is 45 minutes.

on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.. the house will consider number bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the of business tomorrow. yesterday, the senate acted on a student loan bill that house passed last month. i expect the house to deal with it probably next week. in addition, i expect to consider -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. >> the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. these take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i expect to consider the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations act authored i representative tom latham. members are advised to house will begin consideration of this

bill on tuesday afternoon and should be prepared to offer amendments that that appropriate time. members are further advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series that they could be longer than normal. for the remainder of the week, mr. speaker, the house will consider number of bills to restrain runaway government and re-empower our citizens. to stop government abuse and protect the middle class, we will bring in a number of bipartisan bills to the floor under suspension of the rules on wednesday. following that, we will debate to bills for certain to rules focused on stopping government abuse and protecting the middle class. the first, hr 367, sponsored by representative todd young, requires congressional approval of regulations that cost over $100 million. the second, hr 2009, 2 keep the

irs off your health care act, by representative tom price, since the irs from implementing any portion of obamacare. when federal bureaucrats abuse their power and waste tax dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, and the rule of law is betrayed. thank you, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his information. i don't see on the schedule, mr. speaker, that we are going to budget conference at least with no notice from the majority leader on that fact. mr. speaker, as you know, we are facing a number of critical deadlines. it has been 125 days since the house passed a budget and 100 23 days since the senate passed a budget. on issue after issue, our republican colleagues, mr. speaker, have passed bills and refused to negotiate. mr. speaker, it is passed time for action. no notice from the majority leader on that fact. mr. speaker, as you know, we are facing a number of critical we should go to conference and reach agreement. i would urge my friend, mr. majority leader, that mr. speaker, to go to conference.

one of his colleagues from virginia said this -- i am probably on record about this. i believe we need to go to conference. speaking of the budget. this number went on to say i have listened carefully to the argument that we should not go to conference and frankly i do not wind it compelling. mr. speaker, that was representative scott ridgel from virginia. does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all on the budget? and i yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his tenacity as this is a weekly discussion between he and me. i'm delighted to respond and say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that it is something we should commit ourselves to working out. but as the gentleman knows, the position of the majority is we don't want to enter into discussions if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. the gentleman has heard me every week on this issue in that we believe strongly you fix the problem of overspending, you reform programs needing reform

to address unfunded liabilities first. then if the gentleman is insistent that taxpayers need to pay more of their hard-earned dollars into washington, that discussion perhaps it is appropriate. but as a prerequisite to entering budget talks that we agree to raise taxes is not something i think the american people want this body to engage in. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the gentleman's premise is absolutely incorrect and the american people ought to know that. the senate has voted to go to conference. -- excuse me, they haven't voted to go to congress because republican members of the united states senate will not bow to go to conference.

there was nothing in that motion that said it was a prerequisite that the house agreed to anything, mr. speaker. nothing. my friend, the majority leader, has said repeatedly we have a prerequisite. we have a difference of opinion. that's what democracy is about. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. there is no condition preceding this to going to conference. the senate couldn't make us agree. that's what conferences are about, mr. speaker. they are about coming together and understanding there are differences. there will be no need for a conference if if there were not differences. there are differences. we are $91 billion apart on our budgets.

we are 14 days away from the end of this the school year in terms of -- this fiscal year to get to a compromise, to get to a number, to get to some understanding of how we are going to ensure government operations continue. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. i don't know where that comes from, mr. speaker. i've heard a lot. i have no idea where it comes from. nothing the senate does can force this body, republicans or democrats, to do something. what they have asked is come to the table and talk. there has been a refusal to do that, mr. speaker. and it is bad for the country. a $91 billion difference between us on the budget has to be resolved somehow, someway. the way democracies do it and the way the legislature does it, mr. speaker, is to meet and try to resolve those differences. you could divide the differences, the senate comes down 46 and we go up 45.

my own view is mr. ryan believes there's nothing he will agree to. i will get to that a little later, mr. speaker. that is why we are not going to conference, and he said so in the paper. i will get to his quote in just a second. let me ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, mentioned the bill on the floor next week. so far, we are essentially going to be at the end of the session. before the august break coming next week on friday. we have done for appropriation bills. the house bill of which the majority leader speaks is 17% below the budget control act we agreed on. not only that, mr. speaker, it is 9% load the sequester level. -- below the sequester level. we are not going to vote for it. we believe that badly underfund transportation, housing and infrastructure in this country. but this performance makes some sense considering the lack of regular order. we talked about regular order and we don't follow it. going to conference's regular order. it doesn't change the fact that we just have 14 days left to go and then we need to reach agreement. i will tell my friend, the

majority leader, that we are willing to work together. majority leader, that we are willing to work together. we have been willing to compromise. we have compromised in every one of these agreements we have reached. my friend, the majority leader would say they have as well. but you cannot compromise if you don't sit down. i will tell you nobody has called me to ask me how i believe we can get to the end of this year with a continuing resolution. nobody has asked me that. i talked to mr. ryan. i talked to mr. van hollen. mr. ryan has not talked to mr. van hollen. with all due respect to this discussion about talking, they're not talking. i talked to senator murray. no discussion on how we resolve the difference. i talked to the chair of the majority leader, that we are willing to work together. we have been willing to compromise. we have compromised in every one of these agreements we have reached. my friend, the majority leader would say they have as well. but you cannot compromise if you don't sit down. i will tell you nobody has called me to ask me how i believe we can get to the end of this year with a continuing

resolution. nobody has asked me that. i talked to mr. ryan. i talked to mr. van hollen. mr. ryan has not talked to mr. van hollen. with all due respect to this discussion about talking, they're not talking. i talked to senator murray. no discussion on how we resolve the difference. i talked to the chair of the appropriations committee, the ranking member here and the chair on the senate side. nobody is talking to them about how we resolve the question at the end of next month and we won't be here at the end of next month. we are in session two weeks in september. i want to use a quote, but we should not pass a continuing resolution and i will not vote for a continuing resolution unless we talk about preconditions. for going to conference. talk about preconditions. talk about demands and ultimatums. i will not vote for a continuing resolution unless it defund obamacare. for the time of the continuing resolution. nobody in america believes that is going to be done. a lot of people i know, the majority people tell me -- the majority leader would tell me that a lot of people wanted done. the president won't sign the defunding of obamacare because he believes it's in the best interest of the health of our people. and the welfare of our country. and yes, even job creation and economic growth. but marco rubio says he won't vote for a continuing resolution unless it does something that is not going to happen. the majority leader said they won't go to conference. another ultimatum. unless the senate abandon its point of view. the senate has a right to it point of view and we have a right to our point of view. we need to discuss it. that's the way you get things done in a democracy, mr. speaker. i want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all at any time on the budget? and i yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate his questions.

i would note for the record that i believe, if i have my facts correct, that during the time the gentleman was in majority last, the last congress, it was the 111th, 48 times there was an avoidance of going to conference. so all of a sudden now, the gentleman says that is the panacea. i would tell the gentleman, given his litany of examples of who is talking to him around here, there is a lot of talk about how we resolve our differences. in fact i do know that chairman ryan is talking with chairman murray across the capital about how we go forward. i would underscore to the gentleman that it is not our intention to discuss taking more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from americans while we have not fixed the problems they expect us to fix. i would also say to the gentleman as far as

appropriation bills are concerned, he is correct. i did announced that the bill

would be coming to the floor next weekend it will be the

fifth bill that we will do prior to the august work time. i would remind the gentleman when he was last in the position of the majority, the appropriations bill did not come to the floor in under an open process. in fact, the restructured rules on every one if my memory serves me well.

much easier to shut out diverse opinion, but the speaker has this congress, insisted that we have an open process and allow for robust debate on difficult issues. the gentleman that knows we have been true to that word. i remind him there is a commit it to open process, a commitment here to try to resolve these challenges before us. he is correct, we will have a busy fall, trying to address the needs of this country, whether it is spending and budget needs or whether it is the needs of the middle-class families struggling out there, wondering when the economy is going to pick up, wondering what is going to

happen to their health care. we have a looming obamacare law that already the administration has admitted is threatening job growth, therefore, they offer relief to businesses, but refused to do so for working people. we do not think that is fair. we have democratic union leaders who have said this law is going to provide and has already created nightmare scenarios for millions of working americans, so far as their health care and well-being is concerned. i hope the gentleman will abide by what i know he has always been for, solving problems. i hope he will work with us to do that in the coming months. >> mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's recitation of history. let me remind him that, when i was leader, all 12 bills were passed before the august recess. that also happened the third year. it did not happen the second year when we had a lot of political -- and the reason we went to structured rules is because we had filibuster by amendment. we had delay and obstruction in 2007, just as we have today. just as there is a refusal to go to conference. over 120 days that both houses have passed their budgets, we have still refused to go to conference. that is why you cannot get agreement, and the gentleman characterizes mr. ryan has talked to ms. murray, and senator murray does not believe it was a substantive discussion because -- and you talk about

mr. ryan -- i have a quotation of his you will like, because it makes the point i am making, that will make it later -- paul ryan, when asked about senate republicans planning to work with democrats to address the debt ceiling, said this, it does not matter, we are not going to do what they want to do, i.e., senate republicans. it really does not matter what they do, they being senate republicans. it does not matter what john mccain and others do on the taxes and the rest. if they want to give up taxes for sequester, we will not do that.

it does not really affect us. but it does affect us, because, if we cannot get agreement, those american folks of which the majority leader just spoke, who are looking for jobs, who want to see the economy grow, who are suffering because of gridlock am a who have a lack of confidence because this congress does not work, the most dysfunctional congress in which i have served, and i have been

here 33 years. the least productive congress in which i have served. mr. speaker, that is what we need to be doing. mike lee, another republican in the senate, talking about trying to get to agreement, if republicans in both houses simply refused -- this is their strategy, mr. speaker -- if republicans in both houses simply refuse to vote for any continuing resolution that contains further funding for further enforcement for obamacare -- we had an election you did not win that argument at the national level. mr. speaker, i said mr. obama won that argument. senator leahy says he will not vote for a c.r. if it includes further defunding for enforcement of obamacare. we can stop it, we can stop the individual mandate from going into effect. how? by shutting down government. that is their strategy. we do not think that is a good strategy, mr. speaker. we think that is a bad strategy.

he did not want to see that. we are prepared to work together, to compromise to do that, but nobody believes, just as the gentleman said he will not agree to tax increases. we will have to compromise on that. nobody believes that the president will compromise after an election, after being reelected on a health care program that is benefiting millions of people right now. nobody believes we will compromise on that. 39 times we have tried to repeal it in one form or another. it has failed. we got to come to grips with that. one of the house members, mr. mulvaney from south carolina, said it is completely appropriate to use the debt ceiling or the c.r. to ask for changes to reduce the burdens of this law on americans. they have offered that 39 times. it is not going to happen. apparently, strategy is we are

prepared to strike down government unless they will be bludgeoned into agreeing but to doing it our way if we do not do it our way, we will not do it anyway. that is what the budget conference is about and what this debate seems to be about. senator toomey on the other hand said this -- this has been the way we have been operating for a couple of years now. this is senator pat toomey, former chair of the club for growth, said, it is a disaster. it is a terrible way to run government. senator toomey and i do not always agree, but we agree very

emphatically on that. congressman tom cole described the latest shutdown threat, which is what the previous three speakers had indicated, tom cole describes the latest threat as the political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. that is tom cole, chairman of the republican campaign committee, mr. speaker. we need to get past this you will not do this, i will not do that, and figure out what we will do, i say to my friend, the majority leader, and we have 14 days to do it. we have not gotten it done yet, and frankly we have nothing on the calendar for next week that shows we are moving toward that and. i would hope very sincerely that we could come to agreement, and we were not come to agreement on something that was so hard fought for the last five. we know that. we know you will not raise taxes. but the fact of the matter is we need to come to an agreement. americans expect us to come to agreement. with so few legislative days

remaining before the fiscal year ends and the fact that we must address it, i hope the gentleman will give clarity as to what will be addressed in september, the nine days, since we are so far off course from regular order on the budget and appropriations schedule. can members expect to see a c.r. and does the gentleman have any idea what the c.r. will look like, what it will encompass, what we can expect? we democrats are prepared to work on that effort. we are not -- the gentleman knows we are not going to repeal the health care act. the election decided it. as a matter of a fact, boehner

decided that after election, he said your health care law has been confirmed. i want to make it clear we willing to do some things, we are not willing however to see the sequester cripple policies that this congress has adopted. we are not willing to defund the affordable care act. we are not willing to shift more of the burden onto the backs of the middle class. we are not willing to target medicare or medicaid and education for the deep cuts that were in the labor health bill. we will not consider the labor health bill. it is supposed to be marked up today. it was pulled. i say to the gentleman that he should and his colleagues be willing to compromise on the few legislative days we have remaining, and if he is, he will have a willing partner in me and in democrats, because we believe we need to come to an agreement.

lastly, let me speak of the debt ceiling. the majority leader has made it clear he thinks not resolving the debt ceiling would be a bad policy for our country. i believe it would be a disastrous thing for our country, for the economy, for every american, and people around the world. we know that what happened last time, we were downgraded. it is the majority party's responsibly in each house to make sure that america's credit worthiness is not put at risk, that we pay our bills. i'm hopeful and i want to tell my friend that i am prepared to work in tandem with the majority leader, mr. speaker, to pass a debt limit extension. we will do so in an equal way so that whatever political consequences there are we will

take them together to do what the majority leader and the speaker and mr. mcconnell have said is the responsible thing to do. we are prepared to take half of that responsibility with them. we would hope they would join us in that effort. senator mccain has said that some of my republican olleagues are already saying we will not raise the debt limit unless there's repeal of obamacare. senator mccain said i would love to repeal obamacare. but he said i promise you that will not happen on the debt limit. the president has made it clear it is not going to happen. someone would like to go on with his quote, so some would like to set up one of the shut down the government threats, nd most americans are really

tired of those kinds of sheen and against here in washington. that is senator mccain. i have quoted senator toomey and senator mccain who believe we need to come to agreement. i have also unfortunately quoted senator -- congressman ryan who said he does not care what senator mccain thinks -- who was a candidate for president a few years ago. mr. speaker, i want to ask the leader if he expects we will take an up or down vote on a debt limit extension when we come in september, and i yield. >> i would say to the gentleman the answer to that last question is no, but i would say to the gentleman, the discussion the gentleman just had was so full of just so various and sundry issues, i do not know where to begin, other than to say what is lost in the gentleman's comments is the focus on the hard-working families and businesses of middle-class america, and it

seems to me, mr. speaker, that the gentleman is full of that is not going to happen because washington says that is not going to happen for political reasons. and what we ought to be focused on is how we can act to solve the anxiety that seems to continue to grow on the part of the american public when they wonder about their job, they worry about their tuition cost, they worry about their children's education, they worry every night when the go to bed. the gentleman is so sure that we can and cannot do things for political reasons -- the president is out giving campaign speeches, some of which we have heard dozens of times during the campaign season, that's what all of us should be absolutely focused on is coming together, not for

political imperative, but to solve the problems and provide the relief to the middle class of this country that is asking us to do that. instead of the political demands and imperatives that the gentleman's list of issues was about, let's focus on the people that sent us here, let's ensure that this body of any in washington can begin to work for the people rather than the other way around. yield back. > i have heard that answer more than the president has given the speeches, that mr. cantor refers to. this party has always been, is now, and will be focused on the working people to which the majority leader refers. the president asked us to pass

a jobs bill. no jobs bill has been brought to this floor. there are some bills that the republican party leader wants to say, mr. speaker, our jobs bills. there has been no comprehensive jobs bills, there is none scheduled for next week, but what the people are concerned about is their board of directors is not working. this is not about washington. this is about people who voted all over america. and the leader and his party made their point, and we had election, not in washington, ll over america, and america voted and it has not made any difference on this floor. politics as usual. obstruction as usual. refusal to compromise as usual. talk about regular order, but ot going to conference, not on

budget, on a farm bill, not going to conference on a violence against women act. we finally passed that -- >> there was not a bill to go to conference on that. >> the majority leader wants to focus on working people, he is absolutely right. and the working people of america voted, and i told the majority leader last week 1,400,000 of them, more of them voted on our side than for their side. but his side is in charge. we understand that. we know we need to compromise, work together. but we have not been doing so, and he can talk as much as he

wants. that is what the people believe as well. i tell my friend the majority leader. i asked him about the debt limit. he said no. one of his-- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i want to clarify what he said, that the debt limit extension was not going to come to the floor. >> in september. >> i appreciate that. can he tell us if there is a clean debt limit extension after september? want to repeat so that he knows, is party knows, and american knows, we are prepared to work with the majority party to do in a bipartisan way what ever leader believes is the responsible action to take. one of his predecessors, senator roy blunt, said in responding to whether we ought to risk default by not passing a debt limit, he said this -- no, i do not support that. i think holding the debt limit

hostage -- in other words, if you do not do the debt limit, we would not do this and the other -- or said another way, if you do not repeal obamacare, we will let the country default -- senator blunt, again, one of his predecessors, i do not support that, i think holding he debt limit hostage to any specific thing is probably not the best negotiating place. i thank my friend for his comment. i would again ask him, could we expect a clean debt limit extension at some point in time between september 30 and november 15? >> i will say to the gentleman it is our hope that we can work together across the aisle to solve the problems, to come up with the answers as to how we are going to pay back the additional debt that we will have to incur in this country. i think whatever budget you look at, their site or our

side, mr. speaker, in any iteration calls for additional debt. t calls for the need so we can relieve the american people of that continued liability, and our side has said we would like to do so within the next 10 years, bring the budget to balance. i hope that the gentleman will join us in that spirit rather than saying we should just continue to borrow into eternity without some recognition that that just cannot be a sustainable solution, either. i would say to the gentleman, when he is off talking about the need to go to conference -- and some of the statements he made about the farm bill were inaccurate -- but i think there are a lot of things that this house has done that the president nor the senate seems willing to respond. as i said before, what we are trying to do is address the needs of the working people,

the middle class of this country. we passed the skills act. that was a bill designed to try and align the worker training programs at the federal level with the employment opportunities out there across the different regions of the country. o we could respond to the fact here are hundreds of thousands of jobs openings in certain industries simply because of their workforce does not have the proper skills and training. the president, if he wanted to help the middle class families, instead of off a penny again, giving speeches, he could come and call on harry reid and say bring the bill to the floor, mr. leader, we could do something for american people. this house last week passed a

bill which i believe, and i am sure the gentleman shares my sentiment, that ultimately what we have got to do to grow our economy to secure our economic future is provide for quality education for our kids. we passed a landmark piece of legislation last week without any bipartisan support, mr. speaker, what if the gentleman is so intent on wanting to help and wanting to do something, not because of washington's needs, but because of what we have to do for the kids across this country and their families, then let's help try to forge an answer on reauthorizing the education bill. we also passed a bill that made it easier for working families to spend time with their kids and hold down a wage job, and hourly wage job. is there any movement on that? the president could say let's do that, let's provide relief to the middle class. we also passed in the house several energy bills to help the families out there across this country who are on their vacations right now, choking when they see the price of gas at the pump. we have bills, the president could go ahead and approve the keystone pipeline. where else in the world would you have an environmentally sensitive people other than in america?

we do it cleaner and better than anyone. o sit here and deny us the opportunity to take advantage of our indigenous resources of all it does is cost are working families and businesses more money. they have also passed bills to allow for the safe and environmentally sensitive way of going enter deep oceans, to go in and tap into the resources that are there, things that technology has unleashed, yet the senate nor the president seem interested in helping the middle class and the working families, because all we hear from the other side is what we can and cannot do politically here in washington. i would say to the gentleman, there are plenty of things we can get done together, let's start to focus on the people of this country, not the political imperatives of this institution, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for that response, which i took as a no, which did not indicate that we could expect to see

bipartisan work on making sure that the government pays its bills that have already been incurred. nd a lot of rhetoric and a lot of recitation about bills. all those bills had something in common, do it my way or do it no way. we had an election. i tell the gentleman. he knows that. they thought they were going to take the senate, they did not. the majority in the senate is in the crafts. and the president of the united states was reelected. and that house republican majority was returned. but that did not mean the american people do not expect us to work together. nd i tell the gentleman i am not sure what ever he thought i

made, we did not go to conference on the violence against women act, we did not go to the conference on the farm bill -- >> if the gentleman would yield. >> i will yield. >> there was a blue slip on the senate bill, mr. speaker, and we took up the bill in the house and went ahead and passed the bill. so i do not even know why that is even pertinent to this discussion, and i would say that gentleman understands as well there was a bipartisan farm bill that came to the floor, and if i recall, that partisanship faded away which is what now then has caused the house to bring about other farm bill, and this time trying to be transparent in the process, brought up the agricultural policy piece which has passed the house without bipartisan upport, and then we are also engaged in discussions with the

chairman of the agricultural committee as to forging a consensus on a nutrition piece so we can act again on that. i say to the gentlemen, it is not accurate that we do not intend to eventually go to conference and iron out differences between the house and senate on both of those issues on the ag policies as well as nutrition policies. >> i talked about fact. pete sessions, chairman of the rules committee, republican, said when we passed the farm bill, i believe this is an honest step to get us go by assing part of the farm bill to go to conference. i asked the gentleman last week, i ask him again, there's nothing here about going to onference. he told me we are not going to onference of the we passed the nutrition part. e want to see something on the

nutrition part passed. pete sessions, talking about why they brought the farm bill to the floor and conditions it was, dropping all references and provisions for poor people o have nutritional assistance, aid we are attempting to separate, bifurcate, offered today a rule and the underlying legislation which will go to conference, and in the senate because they passed their own farm bill, has included its provisions where they discussed nutrition program. as a result of that -- this is pete sessions, speaking -- that should be in their bill as a conference measure. if we pass it at this point could go to conference. the gentleman is not accurate when he refunds there's nothing to go to conference on. the senate has amended their bill into the house bill. he could go to conference on that under the processes. the gentleman must know that. that was the expectation that pete sessions says was the purpose of passing the farm bill. let me go back to the point i

was making before the gentleman on the to correct me on what i think were accurate representations, both on all the pieces of legislation as i mentioned. urely that is the case i mentioned. hat is the case on the budget. i do not what the intention is, ut we have not gone to conference on the farm bill, and we did not go to conference on the violence against women bill. the fact is what those bills that he mentioned did have in common is -- and he said -- we had no democratic votes for it, there was no work to get them a -- to still work for compromise. that is why the polls reflect to the working people such concern. the majority talked a lot about confidence, talked a lot about building confidence if we are going to build the economy. i agree with him. we need to have individuals confident, and the gentleman knows every one of business eader says if they had

confidence that we could work together and get things done, not put the debt limit and risk, not for the ongoing operations of government at risk, but continue to have fights -- i talked to a major leader of one of that health insurers in this country and said, we may never not like some of this bill, but we will try to make it work for all americans. we are not doing that, mr. speaker. we're trying to repeal. we are not conferencing. you're not trying to come to compromise. we are talking about working people as is appropriate for us to do, and that is what the president is out doing, not here in washington. i am talking all of us. he is talking to the people and saying this is my program, this is what i want to do, and i'm not getting cooperation from the congress of the united states. i think he is absolutely right,

and he is talking to the people, not us, not here in ashington, but he is criticized for doing that by the majority leader. i think that is what he ought to be doing, because the people will ultimately have to make a decision as to who is looking out for their interests and who is sadly confronting and not listening to the people in the last election. in the last election or right now, when the people are saying, board of directors, work together, stop obstructing. i would hope we could do that, mr. speaker. unless the leader has something else he wants to say, i yield he balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> next week the house is expected to take up a bill on student loan interest rates. the senate passed the version similar to the one in the house on thursday.

both chambers will work on transportation and housing spending for 20 146789 we will have live coverage of the house another noon eastern here on c-span. >> after receiving criticism for comments he made about immigrants steve king addressed the issue on the house floor on thursday, defended his comment challenged his before they cr debate him. >> engage in this debate. i challenge people to debate with me because i believe one of two things. if i can't sustain myself in debate i need to get better infered or could it be i'm wrong? only two things come from not being able to sustain yourself in a debate. i'll get all the information i can get and i'll reconsider. that's why i challenge people to debate. i'll take it up and we'll see who can sustain themselves.

we may not get this resolved in one discussion. in this congress it's been a rare thing over the last ten plus years to see anybody stand up and admit i was wrong. what you said changes my position. what i learned changes my position. there are too many egos involved in this congress for that to happen. it doesn't happen publicly unless there is some kind of leverage brought to bear. our southern board certificate pourous. it's not as pourous as it was seven or eight years ago mainly because the economy has grown in mexico twice the rate it has in the united states the last four or five years. we don't have as much pressure on our border. but 80 to 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america come through mexico. i can tell new mexico they are recruiting kids to be drug

smugglers. between the ages of 11 and 18 they have arrested and i believe incarcerated and the number of convictions that actually may be the number of convictions but it's at least over 800 per year at that ratio of those who are kid who are smuggling drugs into the united states. we pick up someone on our side of the board and that adds to that number. many get away. every night some come across the board smuggling drugs across the board. the higher value drugs, heroin, meth amphetamine, cocaine are being strapped to the bodies of young girls. the media is replete with this. anybody who reads the paper, especially anybody who lives on the border should know there are many young people coming across the board who are smuggling drugs into the united states. they should also know the drug

cartels and i mean specifically the mexican drug cartels have taken over drug distribution in most of the major cities in america and the numbers that i've seen go from a little over 200 cities in the country to 2,000. i don't know what population that dials it down to. it should be apauling to a country to see that is taking place. when you understand according to the drug enforcement agency of every chain of illegal drug distribution we have in the country, they will tell you at least privately as they have to me on multiple occasion that is at least one link are illegal aliens smuggling drugs into the united states. it's important we know that as a congress, as a country as a civilization. if we deny those facts and the information that comes out of the obama administration that certainly supports those. if you deny the information in

the major media and what we are told by the law enforcement fficers on the border that are , the cting at rates illegal drugs that are come ago cross the border are at least that time. a high amount of drugs are likely to come in. if we tighten the board the price of drugs should go up f. you look at the price of drugs we haven't been effective. part of that is they find new ways to smuggle and part of that is because kids are being used to smuggle drugs into the united states. the death across the arizona border is still there. this debate taking place now in the middle of the summer is going to end up with more people being found out in the

december ert who have lost their lives trying to get into america. we need to build a fence, a wall and another fence. we need to put sensory devices on top of there. we need to use boots on the ground. no nation should have an open border policy or blind eyes policy. no nation can remaybe a great nation if they decide to sacrifice the rule of law on the alter of expedience si. no nation like the united states of america can continue to grow and be a strong nation if we are going to judge people because they disagree with our agenda rather than the content of their statement. we have to be critical thinkers and analytical. we should understand fact frs emotion and let's pull together. let's understand that we do have compassion. we do have compassion for every

human person deserves dignity. we need to treat them with korean war like the veterans did just like they did. but we must not sacrifice the rule of law on the alter of political expediency. >> with that i would yield back the balance of my time. >> house speaker john boehner weighed in on his remarks at his weekly briefing. >> house republicans are committed to fixing a broken immigration system. we are working on a common sense approach to ensure that the american people have confidence we are addressing

these issues openly and honestly. our focus is on getting the policy right so we fix it once and for all and help our economy grow. i want to be clear. there is no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials. earlier this week representative steve king meaped comments that were i think deeply offensive and wrong. what he said does not reflect the values of the american people or the republican party. we all need to do our work in a constructive open and respectful way. as i've said many times, we can disagree without being disagreeable. >> on the next "washington journal" a conversation on the performance of the u.s. economy since president obama took ffice. and a look at u.s. and global

nergy production and con sums. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the treatment of hunger strikers at guantanamo compromise it is core ethical values of our medical profession. the a.m.a. has long endorsed the principle that every ompetent patient has the right+ medical intervention. óóó world medical.. association and the international red cross have determined force feeding through the use of restraints is not only an ethical violation but violates article three of the geneva conventions. >> let's set aside the numbers

you might or might not push out. there are an unknown number but the president said there are 46 that you can never try. do you honestly think the people behind me and the people who are impelling this hearing or thewwwñwwwwwwww they risoners becausewwww united states?wwwuuuuw guantanamo bayooóooo w is hard towwwwwwwwww detainñ niece who pose no threat to our national security. e 86 men who have beenww for transfer should beçççç transferred.ççççççççç placesççççççççç for a detinyees as we have done in ll conflict.

>> live coverage of the roosevelt reading festival. on c-span3's american history tv, president obama and defense secretary chuck hagel commemorate the 60th anniversary of the korean war. also saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. the senate foreign relations committee today held a hearing on egypt, where the military has ousted the elected islamist president mohammed morsi. experts and diplomats talked about u.s. aid to egypt's military and the consequences of cutting off that assistance. this is just over two hours.

come tohearing will order. thank you for joining us today for a timely hearing on the unfolding circumstances in egypt. i want to thank ambassador dennis ross and dr. michele dunne and ambassador daniel for being here today. we look forward to their effective on the situation in fort and the ramifications egypt and the united states. the situation in egypt has implications for the united states. our response must be carefully calibrated. at the same time, support u.s. national security interest in the region. view,two goals are, in my

not at odds with one another. they do require a complex policy response that allows us to advocate for much-needed democratic reforms while also ensuring our own security needs. at the end of the day, our policy and our laws must be nuanced enough to allow for a response that reflects our interests. it is my view that terminating u.s. assistance at this time could provoke a further crisis in egypt that would not be to our benefit. having said that, the future of our relationship with egypt will be determined by our actions in the coming weeks. whether we will have a stable and willing partner in crucial matters of security, combating terrorism, trafficking of weapons and people, support for peace in the middle east. can standely, we aside during this crisis and just hope for the best. while our choices are difficult at this time, it is my view abandoning egypt would be a particularly poor policy choice.

whatever policy we ultimately choose during this time of upheaval in egypt, it is critical all parties exercise restraint, let protests remain peaceful, and that violence is rejected. the interim government should take those concerns to heart and above all in short the restoration of democracy bs transparent and inclusive as possible. steps that exacerbated the divide in egyptian society, including the use of support and -- the only way vibrant and stable democracy lies in the inclusion of all political parties and groups. supporte clear -- our is not unconditional and unending. at the end of the day, egyptian leaders and the egyptian military must show they are committed to a political process, credible democratic elections, and governors who protect the rights of religious

minorities and women. on that subject, i am concerned about the treatment of christians, women, and refugees in a stabilized egypt. it means preventing the beating and killing of christians and sexual assaults on women. also, egypt turning its back. egypt's military an interim government should provide safe haven for innocent the billions fleeing the brutality of the asad regime. beope security forces will vigilant in the increasingly violent finite where innocent victims have been killed and terrorist groups have lost -- launched attacks. the egypt government must quickly overturn the recent convictions of 43 ngo workers. must not stand. their work to support the americans in a strong preliterate stick democracy is

-- luralistic democracy the choices that lie before us. with that, let me recognize our ranking member. >> thank you. i want to welcome our witnesses. due to the dramatic changes that occurred in egypt, it is critical we take a look and take time to discuss our relationship. forget we have critical national security interest is in egypt. the most populous come get -- country in the middle east. it provides u.s. military vessel, preferred access to the canal. on two countries cooperate counterterrorism. so, our policy right now is in a bit of a quandary. we are trying to decide how to move ahead with egypt, how the

issue of the two affects what it was or was not, how it affects our policies going forward. i really do appreciate the witnesses coming in and giving totime to think with you as how we move ahead with our policy in the quandaries we face. same time, understanding the importance of egypt as a strategic ally and, candidly, very important entity in the region we want to see stability prevailing. mr. chairman, i thank you for having this hearing. i thank you to the witnesses, and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. with that, let me turn to our witnesses. i am pleased to introduce ambassador dennis ross. created one of the nation's most respected foreign policy lines. , back to thessador committee. we also have with us dr. michele dunne.

has served on the national security council staff and policy and planning in the bureau of intelligence and research state department. kurtzer,sador daniel professor in middle east policies and studies. a great institution in the state of new jersey. servicen the foreign for almost three decades and retired in 2005 and has been an ambassador in both israel and egypt. thank you all for being here. your full statement will be entered into the record without objection. we ask you to summarize your statement in about five minutes or so so we can have a dialogue with you. with that, ambassador ross, if you will start. >> thank you. last time i was here, i was here to talk about serious and the civil war there. it is no question that both our morals and strategic interests are engaged there.

the response is very different, the stakes are very high. i find myself in agreement with what you are saying in your statement. when we look at egypt, we know that egypt is perhaps the most important arab country. it is always one that affects the rest of the region. politically, culturally it has

been a trendsetter. when we look at the events of the arab awakening, they might have begun in tunisia but it was the events of tahrir square which captured the imagination of the world. it is an unsettling situation, to say the least. at a minimum, we have seen unelected leader removed, but i think when we look at the selected leader that was removed, we have to understand that the intervention by the military is an intervention that was very much backed by a very large segment of the egyptian population. a critical mass of egyptians feel that this leadership under president morsi and the muslim brotherhood was a leadership that was not addressing egypt's problems. it was more concerned with control than it was with governance. while one can dispute the actual numbers that were on the petitions and one can question how many will be on the street, there is no question that a significant percentage of egyptians responded. what took place was a popular uprising. the military used that uprising to remove president morsi, but the reality is that today there

is a good day of support for what the military has done. there are those within egypt, within the rest of the region which would view what has taken place as a course correction and that helps to explain why you look at the saudi's and the kuwaitis having provided assistance and beginning to act on that. there is one narrative that describes this very much as a course correction, a popular uprising. there's also a different narrative which comes from the the muslim brotherhood and the backers of president morsi who see a legitimately elected government replaced in an illegitimate way. they demand the reinstatement of president morsi. they make it clear that they will not allow things to remain as they are and they will continue to try to disrupt life within egypt unless he is reinstated.

we have what can only be described as a deep polarization. there are efforts to mediate the differences, but it is difficult to see how these are likely to be mediated. we are bound to see this polarization continue for some time. it will confront us. there will be difficult dilemmas. i think that we can look at the interim government which has many figures on it who are credible. we look at malawi and a number of others. they are certainly very credible figures, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the arbiter today is the military. the first deputy prime minister, you look at the speech he made yesterday in terms of calling on egyptians to come out and support their effort against terrorism which another way of talking about their efforts against the muslim brotherhood. which will be --

we are in for what will be a long period of instability. the real question for us becomes what do we do now and it is not as simple an answer. there are some who say that we should cut off assistance. i am not one of those. it is not because i don't understand the rationale behind doing that or the arguments that are made, the notion that it was a coup, that we have laws, that we have its bulls. i take all of those very seriously. i take seriously the reality that the military's actions were supported by the significant percentage of the egyptian population. i take seriously the need for us to maintain influence in the current situation. if we were to cut off our

assistance at this point, the effect of that would be that we would lose the link we have with the military, but we'd also find a backlash among the egyptian public. the egyptian public would look at this as an american effort to dictate to them against the popular will. they would not take seriously our calls or statements that this is simply our law and these are our principles. we would also find we would not have much influence in the rest of the region. much is influenced by what is going on in syria. we would also see the saudi's and others and will take the place and assistance. i am concerned that the net effect would be that we don't have influence at a time when we

should be able to affect what will happen. i would not overstate the degree of our leverage but i think it is critical for us to be prepared to use the leverage that we have. a military clearly wants us to maintain the relationship for practical reasons. they also want it for symbolic reasons. if we cut off the assistance, it reinforces the narrative that them muslim brotherhood has put out there and it will make it difficult for the interim

government and the military to get assistance. the key for me is to use our leverage, not to be reluctant to use our leverage, and to use it for a variety of purposes. we should be using it to ensure that the military really does go back to the barracks, to ensure that the interim government is empowered to make real decisions. along those lines, they should be working with the imf. i think that there should be inclusiveness, there should be a transparent political process, i think there should be an international monitors who would be invited in to observe the election, to demonstrate that these will be free and fair. even if it means that the timing should be, should reflect the need for preparation.

as well, there should be the point you made about pardoning the 43 ngo's that were arrested for violating egyptian laws. one of the most important things we could do and the signal that we would send about egypt's posture with regards to building a civil society which is the key to having a level playing field. we should use our leverage for those purposes and for allowing the muslim brotherhood to be included within an election. if they choose not to take part, that would be their decision.

the bottom line is that without having delusions about how much leverage that we have, recognizing the limits, we should not take ourselves out of the game right now. we should not simply make a statement for the sake of making a statement. we should try to shape the direction that each of takes. we have a huge stake in how egypt evolves. ultimately, we should exercise that leverage and understand the following. if in fact we find that we are not listened to, we can always cut off the assistance later. i don't object to the use of assistance or the idea that we should be prepared to cut it off if we find that there is not responsiveness to the point and the principles that we are pushing. if we were to do it at this point, unfortunately we would no longer have an effect on what happens in egypt. i don't think we should cut ourselves off. thank you. >> thank you, chairman menendez, ranking member corker, members of the committee. thanks for the honor of testified about the crisis in egypt. as we look at the political turmoil and try to sort out u.s. policy options, i would like to raise four points. the first point is that the july 3 removal of the muslim brotherhood president morsi by military to following enormous demonstrations should not the understood primarily as a triumph of secularism over islamism. along with secularists and islamists in egypt, there is

another major player which is the egyptian state itself. this was left largely intact after the removal of former president mubarak. the military, which is the most powerful player within the state worked with the islamists and against the secularists. now, the military as well as other state institutions has been on the defensive. this new alignment may not be any more stable or lasting. it is also important to say the current alliance with the secular opposition is anti- brotherhood. it is not anti-islamist. the party supported the removal of morsi and has exerted its

influence in the new transition by vetoing the cabinet choices. my second point is that we should really reserve judgment. this will put egypt on the path towards democracy or not. on the positive side of the ledger, the military is not exerting control directly but has put civilians out front. they put in place a cabinet. in addition to that, i would say another positive sign is that the new transition roadmap puts the rewriting of the

constitution before the holding of new parliamentary and presidential elections and this does correct a flaw in the first transition. the fact that they held this before the first time. they are dominating the process and is quitting others. on the negative side of the ledger, the way in which the

democratic process was set aside on july 3 is troubling. he was a failure as a president and he behaved as though winning on july 3 is troubling. he was a failure as a president and he behaved as though winning 52% gave him a mandate to rule as a pharaoh. the broad public opposition to his leadership was real. but it would have been much more powerful and salutary for egypt's young democracy if he had been defeated in the early election or a referendum. there were some efforts made to persuade him to accept this, but they were very very brief. then, very quickly, the military moved to remove him in this way. in a way, which sets a dangerous precedent. in addition to this, the new transition going on in egypt is in danger of repeating the single most important mistake of the first transition which was the failure to build a broad consensus and a tendency to exclude critical players. the secularists were saluted before, the brotherhood is excluded now. while they are speaking the language of inclusion,

reconciliation, there actions are saying the option. some of the senior leaders are detained without charge. there are rumors surfacing daily that they might be charged a very serious offenses such as treason or terrorism. there are lots of other signs that the intention is to exclude the brotherhood, perhaps out law it again. there is a real contradiction here between the talk about inclusion and the actions that the government is taking. my third point is despite the military's argument that it took this action to remove morsi in order to spare the country a civil war, egypt seems to be headed into a time of greater instability and perhaps a cycle of instability. there has already been a troubling spike in violence. more than 160 people killed and 1400 injured in the past couple of weeks. daily clashes between pro-and anti-morsi groups. egypt is a much more heavily armed country than it was a couple of years ago.

a spike in attacks against the military and police officers in the sinai. egypt in the situation could see a return to the type of insurgency and domestic terrorism it experienced in the 1990s when jihad these targeted government officials come christians, taurus, and liberals. if there is this kind of ongoing violence, it will not be possible to attract forests and investment back to egypt. there is money coming into the central bank from gulf donors and so forth.

the call yesterday by the deputy prime minister, the defense minister for massive demonstrations tomorrow. in order to provide him, he said a mandate to crack down on terrorism. risks to escalate in the violence further. in light of all of these many dangers, the united states should proceed with caution and be guided by some basic principles. egypt can only be a reliable security partner for the u.s. and a reliable peace partner for israel if it is reasonably stable. it will only become stable once it develops a governing system that answers strong and persistent popular demand for responsiveness from accountability for my fairness, and respect for citizens rights. we will have to look at the signs in the coming weeks about whether there will be inclusive and this or whether this campaign of excluding the brotherhood will escalate. will there be things like media freedom?

civil society freedom? it is very important, the case against 43 workers, including 16 americans who have been convicted and sentenced to prison for ngo's working in egypt. the u.s. should take the time to pause. suspend military deliveries and assistance in accordance with our law and review our policy towards egypt and our assistance to egypt including special privileges that egypt receives such as cash flow financing for foreign military financing. the u.s. should carry out its own internal review as well as a dialogue with egyptians inside and outside the egyptian government with the stated intention of resuming assistance as soon as the country is clearly back on a democratic path. in the meantime, we should do a review of the kind of military and economic assistance we offer egypt, which should not be kept on autopilot. rather, it should be updated in order to provide the kind of assistance when it is rescinded that is truly suitable to promoting a stable, prosperous,

democratic egypt that plays a vital and responsible role in the middle east. the u.s. understandably is wary of damaging its long-standing relationship with the egyptian government but it should avoid pursuing a policy that appears to be cynical and unprincipled. we should not make the mistake of concluding that the u.s. no longer has any influence in egypt. in fact, the fact that egyptians pay such close attention to what our officials say and have been very critical of our policy means that we still have quite a lot of influence to exert. thank you. >> thank you, ambassador. >> thank you very much for the invitation to be here today and to you, senator menendez, thank you for your service on behalf of all of us and for our nation. having spent years living in egypt while serving our country in foreign service, i cannot tell you how excited i have been to see a people long under the yoke of authoritarianism and dictatorship striving to define who it is they are and what it is they want to be come a how

they want to shape their society. this has been largely a revolution to define egypt's identity and to establish a constitutional basis, a legal basis, for egypt to pursue its own form of democracy. we are looking for a second chance for this revolution. this revolution is likely to continue to go through phases as the egyptians wrestle with these pressing large issues on their agenda. i would offer three comments in addition to the written testimony that i submitted for the record. first of all, we need to understand that this is an ongoing dynamic process.

we are in round three or four of what might be termed a heavyweight bout. there are forces in egypt that will continue to contest for political power. the egyptian public is as we know family divided, almost evenly divided among these various forces, including those who look to the military and security services for stability and law and order him including those who would like to see egypt to find by an islamist agenda. for those who were not that unhappy with the previous regime and since we want to return to some form of stability while enjoying some liberty and freedom. what we need to do is be patient. the revolution is only in his third year. as revolutions go, they normally take a long time to unfold. as we take a look at the last few weeks in egypt, we should instruct by the way in which the form of popular will was expressed both in the petition

that added many millions of signatures as well as a demonstrations on june 30 and afterwards that persuaded the military to oust the former president. i know we are debating the question of whether this fits the definition of a coup according to our law and we should be debating that is the lawyers look at legal issues. we need to be mindful that millions of egyptians took to the streets from all classes, all sectors of society, not just cairo mama but upper egypt as well, alexandra, and the delta to say they did not like what resident mohamed morsi was doing to the country. he fired judges and basically a certain powers and accrued powers only to himself. having turned the other cheek and eye when it came to the massacres of coptic christians and others. the egyptian people basically said that we were ready to go to the streets to push hosni mubarak out of office and we were ready to go to the streets to push mohamed morsi out of

office. we need to understand that the egypt-u.s. relationship that we have enjoyed now for more than three decades is changing. it is changing rather rapidly. the degree to which our assistance of the late 1970's, 80's, and 90's contributed to major changes in egypt. we helped to transform the egyptian military from a military alliance on the soviet doctrine, training, and weapons, to a military that is basically interoperable with hours. that military provides significant should egypt assistance to whatever we do in the middle east and beyond the middle east. we have created a partnership with egyptian agencies, intelligence, counterterrorism agencies, that has been of direct benefit to the u.s. in our own efforts to counter terrorism against us and against

our interests. we have helped to change the egyptian economy from a statist economy that hosni mubarak inherited to an economy which is largely dominated by the private sector. there are still changes that need to be affected to make this economy providing its benefits fairly to all people. the investment we have made has paid off and it is investment that we need to consider as we think about what we want to do in the future. our leverage with respect to egypt today is reduced and we need to understand that. the degree to which we do can help us see egypt through what

some are calling a second chance in its own revolution. a second chance also for us to redefine this important strategic relationship. in that respect, i think it would be shortsighted to cut aid to the egyptian military at this time. in fact, as i say in my testimony, we should have considered doing this years ago. egypt's needs have largely been economic. to cut that aid off now would lose us the one partner that has proven to be stable and reliable in pursuit of our own strategic objectives.

we should see egypt through this crisis. we should provide advice quietly. we tend to say too much publicly and we tend to react too much to daily events. quiet advice may be the order of the day. secondly, i think our own actions in this respect need to be tempered as well. understanding that the egyptian people, a proud people, are going to defy their own future. we can help them do it but we cannot make demands of them and expect them to follow our demands simply because we are providing assistance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for your testimony. it is very insightful. as both diplomats and academics, we need more than five minutes to do, but it was all very worthwhile. let me start off -- i am concerned, and i would like to hear your views. i think that egyptian society believes that the u.s. sided with the brotherhood in a way that was against their will. i sense that from conversations, from civil society, from reading. if we were to cut off the aid now, would that not in that civil society, reinforce the view? that that is in fact the position of the u.s.. what would you say to that? >> i think that that would be the effect. whether the perception was correct or not is immaterial.

it would be seen as being a statement that we were siding with the brotherhood against anything. i am not saying it is wide majority but i think it is the majority of the public. i think it would produce a

backlash. it would not yield us any benefits. that is one of the reasons i don't favor it. >> does anyone else want to comment? >> senator menendez, you're quite correct that a lot of egyptians say the u.s. sided with the brotherhood and before that they thought that we sided with the supreme council of the armed forces. egyptians, of all kinds, whether they are secular or islamists, take a different view because they have looked at it as having no principle and being self-

serving. we stuck close to mubarak when he was in power, and then morsi he was in power. there has not been any principles motivating our policy. that is one issue. the other issue is how would egyptians react to a suspension of our aid. what the ambassador said is a danger, but this will depend on how the military will play this. they can drum up anti-u.s. sentiment if they like to. or, they could choose to say, the u.s. is suspending the assistance temporarily. that is their law, but we will see through a democratic transition.

and so, it is not a problem. the assistance will be resumed because we fully intend to come through on the transition to democracy. >> first of all, to underscore what dr. dunne said, the fact is that egyptian public perceives american policy only in line with its own views. when the supreme council of the armed forces was in power, we were seen to be holding them together. when the muslim brotherhood came to power, we were seen as supporting them. now, we are supporting this interim government. it is trying to play to the sentiment of a public that is trying to sort out its own political views will be quite difficult. one of the problems in terms of this cut off question is, as you suggested, the implications. it is not just an implication defined by how the public would absorb this, or, even as dr. dunn suggested, how the military might react, but whether or not it serves our interests.

they are trying to calm the situation in the peninsula, which is extraordinarily dangerous, and which jihadist's only from gaza but elsewhere, have fought to use that peninsula as a launching pad for attacks against ejections and israel.

they are also closing tunnels used for smuggling between sinai and gaza for the first time in decades. those tunnels are now in debt in jeopardy. the military continues to provide the support we have a needed to our personnel and our equipments where they have to be. as long as we have deployments use of egypt, we will require support and assistance from the military to do so. in the short term, it may be that the military could live with a temporary cut off. we would be cutting off our own noses to spite our face. it would not serve american interests to do that.

>> it seems to me the question is, some leverage versus no leverage, at the end of the day. personally, i believe using the leverage is an inappropriate use is an appropriate use. i also think about cutting off aid totally at this time, as some have suggested. at a time in which egypt's economy is in a downward spiral. the potential effect of that, there may be others we will try to replace. it would mean we would have no influence. they would replace, to some degree, the resistance. it would still be a significant blow to the economy. is that an additional concern? secondly, some of the language in the appropriation bills that are beginning to move our citing three conditions for the disbursement of u.s. military assistance to egypt. one is a political process, to is credible democratic electives and governments that protect the rights of religious minorities and women. do you think those are the appropriate conditions and precisely what steps should the military and the interim government take to satisfactory check those? >> first, i do think it has the potential on the economy, not just in terms of the objective realities, but psychologically, it has some potential impact. i would worry less about the economy and more about our ability to affect the egyptian military exercise. i am worried about what the general said yesterday, that if we have little influence in the situation and they turn more to the gulf, understand one thing. for the wrong reasons, they want a very tough suppression of the muslim brotherhood. they see it as a mortal threat to them. if we will put the military close in the arms, any prospect of restraint goes out the window. if part of our aim is to try to enhance the prospect of egypt evolving over time in a much more favorable direction, if we take ourselves out of this

equation right now, the prospect of restraint this appears. i agree with something dan said earlier. we are more likely to have an effect if we try to do it quietly. the more it appears in the eyes of egyptians, it seems we are telling him what to do, the more we trickle -- trigger a national backlash. it does not mean we take away the potential to say things quietly or publicly. they should understand what we say in private is not going to remain in private. they should understand they do lose the connection to us and they want it. if we do it in a way that they cs to heavy-handed, it will be used against us. there is a long history here of the united states saying certain things in public that trigger an impulse. i go back to the 1960's. he said we could go drink all the water from the mediterranean

to the red sea. >> do either one of you want? >> yes. if i could comment on the economic crisis egypt is facing, you are exactly right. our focus on military assistance has to do with the legislation and the definition of what happened. egypt has been in economic crisis for two years since the revolution began, which is quite ironic, because if you look at the numbers before the revolution, egypt was on a significant upward return with respect to its manufacturing

sector and its tourism sector and exchange earnings. they are now at a point where the gap in financing is a pro se approaching $3 million a month. in a situation where foreign exchange has been depleting rapidly, this represents a very significant crisis. as i suggested my original testimony, there may be a neat if egypt can reach an agreement with the international monetary fund, to think about emergency assistance for egypt in order to get egypt over the economic pump hump. the conditionality that is written into legislation, as one who lived in egypt for seven years, and worked with egyptians for a very long time, when i hear of what -- when they hear about conditionality, even if the conditions support and complement what they want to do, they're back gets up and they become very challenged by it. i hope we can talk about these as goals we and the egyptians share, goals for an inclusive political process in which the rights of women and minorities are protected.

to the extent these become the equivalent of dictates from the united states, i think we will see cliff back from the egyptians. that will present its own kind of problem for us. >> thank you. >> may i comment on this question? >> you know, i would like to move to other members. but i appreciate, maybe at the end, if other members have had their opportunity. let me, before i turn to the senator, recognize and welcome to the committee the senator of massachusetts. he has a long history in the house of representatives, where i had the privilege of serving him. he has cared about international issues for some time and has been a leader in climate change and nuclear issues. we welcome them to the committee and look forward to his service with us. senator.

>> thank you. welcome, senator. dr. done, since we have this new spirit in the air here, if you want to take 30 seconds of my time to answer, go ahead. >> thank you. senator menendez said there is a question of some leverage versus no leverage. the united states has kept the military assistance going and has never used it as leverage. i think we are reaching the point where, really, there is not much credibility here, of having any leverage with that assistance. ambassador ross said he would be in favor of using it at a future

point if there were no responsiveness. my understanding is the administration reached out assertively to argue against a military to. there was no responsiveness. we are already at that point. >> thank you. mr. chairman, again, thank you for having this hearing. for what it is worth, i appreciate the testimony. i do think our agents in egypt right now should be an instrument of confidence. we make these issues about us and what we will do. unfortunately, it is one of the great diseases we have here in washington. really, this is about them and it is about an orderly transition and hopefully moving through the democratic process. i appreciate the comments relative to that and think that should be our role as we move forward. i agree much of our advice should be happening privately and not so much divisiveness occurring here. i very much appreciate the comments regarding that. let me ask you this question. a transition plan put in place by the military, do we view that timeframe as something realistic? >> i made a reference to the testimony of monitors coming in. the international community, in terms of observing corrections, were to say more time were to prepare, i would favor that. i do agree with what michelle said.

preparing the constitution in advance of elections is the right thing. it was important to pull out a date for elections. i would like it to be guided by the right kind of preparation, above anything else. >> do you think it is unrealistic echo >> i am a unrealistic echo >> i am a-- unrealistic? >> i am a little worried it was not necessarily realistic. the sequence is more appropriate this time than last time. i would still like the ground to be prepared and i would like to create more potential for inclusion, which will be difficult to produce. >> i agree. i think the sequel -- sequencing is good but we have the constitution rewritten by a small committee and look that five people appointed by the president. this is all supposed to happen

in a couple of months. it is probably unrealistic. if egypt must have an opportunity where there is a broader buy-in than last time, it will probably take longer and involved a lot more people. >> you made the comments of the muslim brotherhood was not included. we talked with many people in egypt that said they tried to include them in this process. which is it? >> as i said, there are conflicting signals. people are saying the muslim brotherhood is included and invited to dialogue. then they forgot their entire leadership in prison and so forth. morsi also kept inviting the opposition to dialogue during

his presidency. they knew it was not a real and sincere offer and they had no intention of acting on that. unfortunately, this is something that is happening again and again in egypt. >> are they included or are they not and what about the transition time? >> on the transition time, we cannot have it both ways. on the one hand, we are pushing very hard for the military to truly go back to the barracks, which we all favor, and i think the military would prefer to do that, as well. we cannot complain about a short transition. we will have to abide by the egyptian will in this case. it is fast, perhaps too fast, a process that they are expecting. the whole thing is supposed to happen in four or five months as the committees go through their work.

if we want the military to truly go back to the barracks, we may have to buy into a process moving a little bit faster than we would advise. with respect to the muslim brotherhood, the system is not going to stabilize, unless some kind of dialogue is undertaken successfully. >> do you think there has been an appropriate reach out to try to reach them in what has happened and have they responded or not? >> there has been effort so far to reach out. the pushback has been there. one of the preconditions on the muslim brotherhood side is the release of former president morsi. that may not happen soon. i would not doubt there is dialogue underway every day behind the scenes, even as they are confronting each other in the streets. the question is whether or not they will find a formula that would allow the muslim brotherhood to climb down from the tree and also allow the military to climb down. in this respect, we saw that the

european union, with its diplomats, had come quite close to persuading the morsi government to undertake reforms. it may be this also diplomatic activities going on time the scenes. >> before stepping back to the bigger picture, if i have time, we read this morning about what is happening at the border crossing. in gaza not long ago. to act as if there is actually border control is a joke. anything you wanted was coming through the tunnels. it was very sophisticated. all the sudden, the military has moved to close got off, a huge change in activity there. do we have any idea what is driving that abrupt, good change? what is driving that? >> it is being driven by a couple factors, revolving around the perception of what hamas is

doing. there is an area built up in egypt that hamas has been very active with egypt itself. there is a perception also that the movement through the tunnels is a two-way movement headed therefore therefore threatened and it therefore threatenedegypt and you have jihadist in the side high and they are trying to affect the two-way traffic. >> also, there is a back story emerging. a piece i saw this morning had suggested the military, some months ago, asked morsi for approval to undertake a major security operation in sinai. morsi's response, according to the article, was that he would not authorize actions by muslims against muslims.

the military has been stymied in its effort to restore security in sinai. we are seeing the first effort by the military to do what it wanted to do over the past year. >> thank you for your testimony and for being here. i will wait until the next round. >> thank you so much, for this opportunity to listen to people who are experts on this. we need to hear you. so much of the situation is nuanced. cutting through that nuance is sometimes difficult, if you are not familiar with it. i just would like to say, on the issue of whether aid to egypt gives us leverage, i am giving an opinion, which you do not have to share, i think all of our foreign aid, being done for the right reasons, it is still leverage. we would hope that people would appreciate the fact we care enough about them they might listen to us from our stand for about the best way to develop and the best way to reach for for democracy. i would say i disagree with you. i think all of our foreign aid should give us leverage in the best of ways.

i wonder if any of you would disagree with this, that he was a military dictator. does anybody disagree with that at the panel? you all agree he was a military dictator. i really think those of us, all of us, who were stunned by the popular uprising, and if you call it the popular uprising, you are showing a bias. if you call it a coup, you are calling it another, but whatever you call it, it cannot be, when you think about the fact that here, the people for 30 years had a military dictatorship and no rights, they are struggling to figure it out. i want you to help me figure it out, bringing all your thoughts to the table and your biases, as we all have.

we try not to, but we might. what i took from all of this is that it was an absolute fear on the part of let's say the majority of the people there. flynn or larger, that morsi was not living up to his commitment to be inclusive. that is why, dr. done, when you explained this temporary government is including islamists, as well as secular list -- secularists, i think that is what you said, isn't that -- what he promised was everyone would be brought in. my sense of it is absolute fear that egypt was moving in a direction that was very dangerous and if something was not done, they would lose their chance at true democracy. am i conflating things? am i being too simplistic?

i would like to know, if you were to analyze why it happened, how would you explain why this happened after an election? dennis.start with -- >> i would say there are several reasons. i think there was a perception many of the people who voted for morsi felt betrayed. they had expected there would be inclusiveness and there was not. i think also, when all segments of society were involved, there was also looking at what was the near collapse of the egyptian economy. life was getting dramatically worse on a daily basis and there was a perception this was literally a leadership that almost seemed indifferent. what you had was the perception of a leadership that was authoritarian, exclusive, intolerant, and incompetent. what iically produced but

think was a very broad alienation across different segments of society. there are multiple factors, but it added up to that. >> dr. done? >> senator, first of all, i do agree with you about our aid being leveraged. a couple of times, the gulf aid has come up, as though, this could just replace our aid if we withdraw it. the military assistance the united states has extended, it means something beyond the so it is a kind of relationship, the transfer of technology, training, exercises, and all these things. money deposited in the central bank from donors cannot replace those things. there are ways in which, -- >> i appreciate that. if you could now move to my question. why do you think this happened? you call it a coup. why you think this

happened. >> i agreed many egyptians felt if something was not done, they would lose their chance at democracy. concern is about what it was that was done. the petition that was circulated, the enormous demonstrations, were asking for an early presidential election. that is not what they got. my concern is that what was done, the removal of morsi by , has damagingrth implications. we are seeing that in the streets of egypt right now. that is my concern. >> do you have anything to add? >> yes. thetor, if you look at actual voting patterns that brought morsi to office, you would see that his support was much broader than just islamists.

therefore, as you suggested in your question, there was an expectation he was going to reach out beyond his own constituency. he certainly failed these who hadal voters decided, on him, as opposed to the formal general. >> i have one last question. my time is running out. i want to talk about syria. have you talk about syria. we know morsi was very very strong had a relationship with the rebel forces, at least a part of them. and they were very committed and took a lot of refugees. what do you think is going to happen now in terms of the in that terribly tragic situation in syria? we will start with dennis. it is, get it now from indigestion standpoint. in a senseeceived supporting the call for jihad eased go sue syria -- go to syria.

i think the idea was they would then come back. re-create what happened in afghanistan and what happened when those people came back to the countries they had left. so i think that drove some of that. i think there is somewhat of a retrenchment right now a think what the chairman was saying is legitimate. you do not want to see them stop being in a place where people were fleeing should be able to come. this is one of the issues you -- we should emphasize in dealing with egyptians. >> a egyptian policy toward syria is in flux. it is unclear. there is a tendency to do the opposite of whatever morsi did. at the same time, the fact that the new egyptian government is going to want to have a close relationship with saudi arabia and kuwait will mean that they

will want to be within that air consensus which still -- that arab consensus. >> i think we will see a revival of what has been a dormant egyptian diplomacy. well.f you know quite egypt has always believed that it is a double planet -- diplomatic leader in this region. been a concerted effort to align policies. you might see the leadership role in defining what the arabs can do to affect change in syria. >> senator rubio. >> thank you for holding this hearing. let's define what the goal is with egyptian policy. two of the statements really doesn't good job of crystallizing the issue.

promotes a representative and inclusive and tolerant andrnment that tackles fulfills its into national obligations, including its he's treaty with -- including its peace treaty with israel. it will become stable once it hasa system that responsiveness and accountability and respect for citizens rights. i thought that was well stated. out whatying to figure u.s. policy can be that moose in june -- egypt in this direction? the rights of everyone should be respected. --ill use an example including the 10% that are christians. the post-morsi security apparatus which are the folks

who are in george have not performed their role and failed to intervene upper deck citizens coming mean christians and their property, despite our knowledge and protect citizens, meaning christians and the property, despite higher knowledge. -- prior knowledge. reports onernational july 5, there was an attack to kill four questions and injured four more as a mob attacked their homes and businesses the tree branches and how matters of security -- and hammers while security stood by and watched. the situation has gotten so bad that they have for three straight weeks canceled his thely prayer for fear that large gathering of christians would be an easy target for attackers. is, in yourstion opinion as attacks are happening and we are gaining reports not

doing anything about it, is this an unwillingness in the part to do anything about it? is it their inability because they're not properly trained and equipped to do anything about it? why are we hearing these reports they are not doing anything? there are instances of it .appening after mubarak is it because they can't or they won't? i have a suspicion it is a little bit of both. i think there is a restaurant of capability and a question of priority. i think there's a question of which battles they want to fight . all of these things are coming into play right now. this is one of those areas that is a concern for us where i would like us to be able to retain some influence to try to affect their behavior. >> go ahead. >> senator rubio, this has been ofong history in egypt

attacks on christians and so forth. there has been a tendency to sweep them under the rug. to try to quiet down the communities after these things happen and to not really bring people to justice. this was unfortunately during mubarak and during the time of morsi and now. what is the common thread? .nreformed security sector the security sector that does not a good rule of law seriously at all basically makes its decisions on a political basis. >> i will tell you what it means beyond the morals aspect. our foreign policy -- our foreign aid programs should further our national interest. it is in our national interest that egypt should be stable. it cannot be stable if 10% feels they are not represented and

unsafe it is pretty apparatus does not protect them. with that in mind come insisting on the should be a critical part --moving forward and turns in regards to our assistance. more -- the need for maybe you can elaborate more on this. until this issue is resolved, in till 10% of the population which has a long historical presence in egypt and a significant part of egyptian society, that other groups feel like they do not have a -- feel like they can be safe, you will not have a safe and stable state that we desperately want not just for the security region. they should be geared toward

giving them the capacity and conditions taking significant steps to ensure that issues undermine the stability are addressed. >> senator, i agree fully. issues that you enumerated in your opening remarks are critical interest of the united states. there are additional critical interest that also have to be taken into account. the intelligence relationship and the military relationship on their counterterrorism eelationship and egypt's peac treaty with israel. that is where difficulty comes. we have tried for many years and i spent many hours with president mubarak arguing about the need to find ways to deal with these sectarian issues. some had to do at local problems and others with larger historical problems. the reality was that the regime and the current regime and the previous regime have not done

enough in this regard. egypt has toin include that. i'm concerned about the conditionality and conditioning our aid on an important issue and only one issue. >> i apologize. my time is limited. i can only focus on certain aspects. i'm sure members will focus on others. the agreement with israel is important. cooperation is important as far as conditionality as all. i'm saying one of the conditions that should the in place should include taking measurable steps to protect religious minorities, in particular, christians. i'm worried a lot of our aid is geared toward military capacity that, quite frankly, they do not need. by doing need to continue to send the fighter jets instead of

the capacity building they could use so they do not have to stand by and watch christians be beat up with hammers and metal bars or anybody for that matter? i'm not saying that is the only condition. it is a significant one. >> thank you. thank you for this hearing. i think it is important that our as theee be engaged circumstances are unfolding in egypt. the senator from maryland, we have a personal involvement here. studentr-old college from chevy chase, maryland went to egypt to teach english in alexandria. an egyptian youth was killed during a protest. we have felt it personally in our state. ross, you got my

attention. this could test our patience as we continue to observe changes in egypt. ournt to talk about policies in egypt as to how it affects the region. aidave talked about u.s. and the point of our influence in bringing about changes within egypt. i'm concerned about the impact it has on the region. the u.s. aid to egypt was basically part of an agreement reached between israel and egypt. the piece agreement between israel and jordan, circumstances in syria have raised questions about jordan. on and offn the again negotiations with the

israelis and palestinians. it has been little hope of progress being made in that direction. frontas been off the pages, but that is an area of major concern of stability in the middle east. i would like to get your as to how our involvement in egypt as it it couldenerally affect the region if we were to ,eopardize the flow of funds would it week in the commitment or the ability to argue for the agreementto the peace with israel? would that be more in jeopardy or not? how does it affect the region? it is easy to say that the egyptian military has its own interest and should have its own interest and preserving the

peace agreement with israel. i'm unlevel it is true. we should not -- on one level it is true. we should not underestimate the kind of impulse it would create among the military to demonstrate the cost to us in having done that. i worry about what implications would be for that treaty. i worry what implications would be for behavior. these still reflect what egypt own interest should dictate. i think if you look at the potential consequences anything that those are adverse, you have to weigh whether you think it is .orth taking that kind of stuff i do not think it is worth taking that kind of step at this point. it reduces our influence to the point where i think we will regret that. i do not want to put us in that position. i think it has a potential

relationship towards what is going on. egypt and maybe elsewhere in the region -- if it becomes a regional focal point for jihad hadis, it could radiate outward. it does have large consequences. >> i have listened carefully to your point. the popular sentiment in egypt has never been pro-israel. if the u.s. were to take steps that would challenge egyptians from the point of view of their independence, doesn't that at a greater risk the relationship between israel and egypt? senator, the egyptian military and the rest of the egyptian leadership make these

thesions about israel and peace treaty and so forth based on their own calculations. they're talking about the issues of the tunnels and how the egyptian military are upset about things they think hamas is doing inside of egypt. therefore they are cutting the tunnels to punish. isn't closing the tunnel something the u.s. has been asking them to do for a long time? i do not challenge that, particularly the military will make assessments based upon their own interest. it is understandable. my point is a popular sentiment in egypt. >> the popular sentiment within egypt regarding israel, the positive side of this is that egyptians have been preoccupied with their own affairs that we

have seen a bit less of the anti-israel grandstanding that we have seen in egypt quite a bit over the years. i think that is largely react to two things that happen. -- reacted to things that happen. >> the challenge is that the perceivede egyptians israel as being a close friend. the u.s. is interested in israel. conditioning aid or suspending aid -- isn't it logical that the risk could be the relationship between israel and the united states? notsrael and egypt -- i do expect egypt to take any actual aggressive action against israel because of this. in terms of the popular sentiment, it will depend on how

the egyptian military would decide to play this. if there was a suspension and the egyptian military -- and there was a hope we would resume this aid as soon as we saw -- >> 15 seconds. two brief comments. in large policy terms the constancy of the u.s.-egyptian relationship is critically important to our interest elsewhere in the region. it will impact what we do elsewhere. number two, it is critically important that we support egypt as a cornerstone of that israeli and egyptian peace treaty. there is a story suggesting israel has been lobbying demonstration not to cut aid to egypt as israel understands that would be against its interest with respect to the peace treaty. >> thank you.

senator johnson. >> thank you for holding the hearing and for your thoughts and testimony. i've been like to understand a little bit more about the profile the population. it is not necessarily anti-islam is. can you explain that comment? i said that because i think there is a danger of seeing egypt in a way that we would like to see secularism as a post to islam is him. islamism. -- islamism.

we will continue to see islamist language in the constitution and all of that. in terms of affiliation with the population, probably the best thing to do is to look at the several sets of elections that have been held in egypt and where the voting has gone. in the past, boating has indicated that there is 40-70% of theeen population that will tend to vote islamic. they varies from election to election. with thet go down political fortunes of the muslim brotherhood falling. ists continueslam to be a part of the political spectrum. >> can you did describe that division? >> we saw the election when morsi was elected. somethingh 51 point

percent. 49 points that something percent was on the other side. there are polarizing candidates. you have been islamist candidate and a candidate that is associated with the mubarak regime of the other. those who stood in the first round of the election who might be called more centrist have not made the cut. you do not have a good test case to know how election would play it's also. self out. ofcan you give me some sort feel of how the population is leaning towards customer -- leaning towards? >> there is a broad national support for the egyptian military. it does not necessarily

translate into electoral support unless they put forward a candidate which they are unlikely to do. >> pro-civility than. >>-- then. >> we assume that there is 35- 40% of the population that would vote islamist for the brotherhood or the more fundamentalist party. you have that kind of a breakdown. there is a large population that is undefined and is able to bring people out of the streets to indicate what they do not want, but they have not told us their political philosophy. these are folks who brought about the many million person protesting. into beingroken down socialist and liberal and all kinds of strange in between. there is called the national salvation front.

it is kind of like a number love for these groups, not yet representative of alternative holocene. economy, howf the much of the economy is driven by tourism? what percentage? in the good days. tourism andod days, expatriate workers represented of theirf 70-80% foreign exchange income. a huge amount of egyptian -- be -- ets economy would >> for sure. when i arrived as ambassador, it was after a major terrorist attack. there was no tourism. there were suffering at that point. rational thing for the population would be pro- civility. >> yes. >> let me talk about foreign

aid. it is complex and incredibly unpopular in the u.s. be quiet and some of our feelings with egypt, but at the same time, if we are to continue foreign aid, we have to be public about conditions and contacting -- and attaching some control. we need to maintain the type of influence most of us would like to be can provide that stability. dialogue takes place all the time. presumably it would lead to some understanding as to why conditionality or a set of goals are attached. pronouncements that come out in the mist -- midst of the liberation tends to be magnified when they are reported in egypt.

give ourot administration representatives or even congressional delegations a chance to have these quiet conversations. i'm sure all of you have visited egypt and has had time to have quite sessions. they can work sometimes rather than a pronouncement coming out of this date department spokesperson. -- state department spokesperson. obligation -- t >> it is not an obligation per se. it is funded by congress. it was an undertaking to support the keys to back in 1979. it has been renewed ever since to the tune of up words $70 billion of american assistance both economic and military. there is no long-term commitment that has been written into legislation. >> thank you. you, mr. chairman.

thank you to the panelists for being here today. observe how egypt goes risk to what are the the transition if the muslim brotherhood is totally excluded and any future coalition that forms to run the government? who would like to address that? i think the key point to understand is that they represent an important social force within egypt. if you exclude what is an important social force in egypt, this is basically a prescription for trouble. they will express themselves somewhat. but we have right now is a reaction to the ouster of president morsi.

the question is whether there can be some vehicle to bring those who are part of the muslim brotherhood back into the political process. should not be excluded. if they choose to take themselves out, that is one thing, but they should not be excluded. it will not be easy -- it will not be easy to bring them back in. it will be difficult. i do not assume that will remain the case forever. not only are they a social force, but they have their own interest in turn influence what will happen in egypt. >> to what extent does it seem like there is some understanding or willingness? somethingk that is that the military, the current arelian folks in charge willing to support?

i will say that the words we are hearing are the right words. the question is whether the behavior reflects the words. >> senator, egypt went through a period where there was a constitution passed and laws and so forth and elections being prepared a significant part of the a-day politics, the secularists, killed excluded from an objected to and it led to everything we saw happen now. the brotherhood is a very significant movement in and if they are excluded this time around, there'll be a cycle of instability. there is that. including the brotherhood now, the goal is to cut the

brotherhood down to size through arresting their leadership and so forth and maybe to include very disadvantaged conditions. they are not agreeing to that. i think there may be negotiations going on whether among egyptians are perhaps some european mediation that could bring about some agreement on this. it will be difficult. it is difficult for the brotherhood to swallow this that they elected this president and he has been removed. the way he was removed allow them to escape from how badly they failed in leadership. >> i would like to sharpen indicated.at dennis i think the risk is much more severe if the national reconciliation cannot take place.

the brotherhood has a long history, 85 years, most of which .iving underground developing a significant infrastructure outside the purview of the state. right now they have adopted that are confronting the authorities. they have decided that is the best way to build the support that they used to have. if they decide not to engage in the process that is reached, and offers real and they decide not to, they could also decide to engage in what we call and insurgents. they would have that capability not just because of their underground history, it also because this is a region where weapons are easy to come by and where jihadist are easy to come by. across the borders at will.

i do not to sound alarming, this is not a question of a lack of social cohesion. this could eat here read rapidly -- this could deteriorate rapidly. one of the things that got a offsetattention at the regarding the revolution in egypt is when the morsi proposed a law to require national security committee to approve all ngo activity. people remembered representatives who were jailed and how they were treated. it seems to me as we think about how to's for countries like egypt, one of the sectors that is critical is the civil society were.

do we have a sense of what the government is going to do with respect to ngos and society leaders? is there more that we should be doing or could be doing to support those civil society leaders? >> the short answer is we do not know yet. this is one of those areas that would be the best indication about creating a genuine political process that changes the future of egypt that creates and egypt that is representative, inclusive, and tolerant. the key will be building civil society institutions. the willingness to embrace and rewrite the laws and pardon those who are prosecuted and found guilty, i think that becomes a very significant measure of the direction of egypt and it should be a focal point of where to use the leverage. >>